MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 16 May 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr McClarty
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

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

1. The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Mark McGuckin and Ms Heather Cousins from the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) and Mr David Barr and Mr John McConnell from the Department of the Environment to this meeting.
2.
Mr McGuckin: I am Mark McGuckin, head of the Criminal Justice Services Division of the NIO. My colleague, Heather Cousins, is head of the Community Safety Policy Branch. I thank you for inviting us to discuss the draft community safety strategy, which was published on 10 April and has a consultation period running until 3 July. We propose to give a short presentation on the strategy, which should help to set the context, after which we shall attempt to address any specific questions. I understand that you are considering clauses in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Pro-visions) Bill, and you will appreciate that, while we can address questions about the community safety strategy, we are not in a position to answer any questions on the Bill.
3.
Ms Cousins: Thank you for the invitation to discuss the strategy with you today. We are trying to consult as widely as possible and are grateful for this opportunity. I have tried to shorten the presentation which we gave when we launched the strategy to fit your timescale, and I have brought copies of slides which are slightly different to those you had.
4.
I shall start with the definition of community safety which we are using in the strategy document and point out certain key aspects. Community safety is a much wider subject than crime reduction, and we are examining the prevention, reduction and containment of social, environmental, and intimidatory factors that affect the right to live without fear of crime, and which have an impact on quality of life. We see this as a much wider subject than crime reduction - it is a quality-of-life subject and must be linked with other such strategies.
5.
We have put together a simple picture of an unsafe community to illustrate the fact that the issue is much wider than merely crime reduction. When you ask members of communities about safety concerns, crime is one of the last things they mention. Fortunately, most people live without experiencing it directly; the things that concern them are lower down the iceberg. The symptoms are truancy, vandalism, difficulties with noisy neighbours, drug and alcohol abuse, graffiti, and so on. This has been borne out by some of the work we have done with the Creating Common Grand Consortium which has surveyed over 40 communities, particularly in Housing Executive estates. They came up with the same issues, and would like to have them tackled under the heading of community safety.
6.
We have consulted extensively, examining crime statistics and conducting research. From that we have come up with nine key issues in the strategy. We have tried to have every issue come in under one of the headings. Some are quite broad, such as "fear of crime among older people, victims and children". Our intention is that it will consider wider safety aspects in relation to older people, victims, and children, as well as crime--related issues. We are also examining youth offending and reducing criminality through diversion and education programmes. The last one is "street violence, low-level neighbourhood disorder, and antisocial behaviour", which is intended to deal with those other issues not specifically crime-focused. Those are our nine issues, which arise from the extensive research we have conducted.
7.
We see community safety as being about local problems. It is about people getting together with service-delivery agencies locally to tackle those problems and develop solutions appropriate to their situations. It must be bottom-up and joined-up - not top-down - and the partnerships need to find ways of involving the community directly. As it is about local problems, the strategy is not prescriptive about how this should work. We anticipate different areas structuring partnerships in different ways and are content with that. It should reflect local circumstances.
8.
With regard to the types of agencies that would be involved in tackling such issues, it is not the job of the police alone to deal with antisocial behaviour. Other agencies will be involved and must think about what services they can offer to support each other in their attempt to tackle the problem of antisocial behaviour. We are considering such groups as the mediation services. Facilities are required for young people so that they are not seen to be hanging around causing a nuisance. Education authorities and local councils can be involved in such provision.
9.
We hope to reduce substantially the fear of crime by working in partnership and giving the problem a higher profile. Improved street lighting has been shown to reduce such fear. A project in an estate in Ballymena has been shown to reduce older people's anxieties. We are also considering the installation of home security systems, particularly for elderly and vulnerable people. A partnership approach can achieve more than individual organisations working in isolation.
10.
In considering structures for partnerships, we established criteria for successful community safety partnerships. We required that the membership and structure of the partnerships allow them to commit resources to partnership working, but that they should also be able to deliver actions. We are not interested in a partnership that will sit around the table and talk. We want one that can do things - with an action plan and people signed up to deliver that programme. It should also be accountable to local people for creating safer communities.
11.
It is vital that community safety be a mainstream activity rather than an aim pursued on the side if there are spare resources. In that way, organisations will come to consider the community safety aspects of any policy which they deliver. It is also important to link that with other strategies related to quality of life. In particular, we are thinking about the strategies on neighbourhood renewal, investing for health and the link to the local policing plan.
12.
We also want a structure which can provide matching funding. We have secured resources for community safety, but we expect other organisations to contribute. Several organisations should be able to move towards achieving their objectives through partici-pation in the programme, so they should also be prepared to provide funding.
13.
Those are the factors we were looking for when we considered models for structures. We decided that we could not be prescriptive, as the partnerships must fit local circumstances. All we have said in the strategy, therefore, is that the partnerships should be based on district council areas. In that way, they will be conterminous with police boundaries.
14.
Our two key concerns are that the partnerships be able to commit resources and deliver services. Community safety should be mainstreamed and become part of the strategic plan for the district. We have not stated that there should be a lead partner. A partnership will decide how it will work when it is formed; it may differ depending on the area.
15.
This slide shows voluntary partnerships already up and running. In Antrim, the community safety partnership is chaired by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Before that, it was chaired by the district council - the partners take turns. Lisburn has taken a different approach by setting up a charitable company. One reason for doing this is to be able to get access funding through charitable trusts. All the partner organisa-tions will be directors of the charitable company. That model is working successfully.
16.
The community safety unit has experience of setting up such partnerships and co-operating with organisations, and we are available to do that anywhere in Northern Ireland.
17.
All partners should be equal. There should be collective ownership of the problems and solutions. One partner should not tell everyone else what to do. You will not achieve success without collective ownership. The service-level agreements should formalise the arrange-ments, so that the partners can agree on their contributions.
18.
The NIO has not asked the district councils to lead the community safety partnerships. It is inviting them to co-ordinate them. It will provide dedicated resources to the partnership for co-ordination. The councils' participation is voluntary, but the NIO is confident that they will see the benefits of working in partnership. Lack of safety in a community will have an impact on all initiatives in the area, such as economic development and health improvement. Engage-ment in a community safety partnership is therefore to everyone's benefit.
19.
The NIO expects the partnerships to perform several key functions. The vital element in the partner-ship is its operation. An audit will be conducted to determine the problems through analysis of the infor-mation available to all the partner organisations. That will result in the development of an action plan that will set out what they intend to do to tackle the problems. The plan will be monitored, and its results will be reported back to the appropriate strategic group. Individual task groups will implement the planned action either in a specific part of a district, or, when dealing with an issue such as domestic violence, across the whole district. The task groups will report their progress to the operational group.
20.
This is a real opportunity to make a difference. The success of the strategy will be judged by the difference that people say it makes to their lives when they are asked about community safety.
21.
The NIO is interested in maximising the benefit from collective contributions. By pooling resources and working together, we shall achieve more than can be done by individual organisations working in silos. However, that depends on co-operation at many levels. A lack of co-operation will have an impact on the scheme. Joined-up thinking and action are needed, as is investment, and the NIO has secured £2·5 million per annum to start the ball rolling.
22.
It is not a short-term initiative, and that is one of the reasons why the strategy will cover a five-year period. The NIO anticipates that, while there will be achievements in the short term to encourage people, the scheme will take time. It will try to tackle the causes of crime, and that cannot be done quickly.
23.
The Chairperson: You placed emphasis on co-operation and the involvement of each partner. The community safety unit will facilitate the formation of partnerships. However, while we are getting some definitions, clause 7, subsection (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill states:

"The Department of the Environment may by order confer or impose on district councils other functions".

24.
The imposition of functions does not imply a partnership. Why was that phrase included? It does not sit easily with the aspects of the scheme that you emphasised, which implied that it cannot be forced on the community and that all parties must work together.
25.
Mr McGuckin: I am not sure that we can answer a question about the drafting of the Bill. It is important that as many organisations as possible participate in partnerships. At this stage, the intention is to include them on a voluntary basis; that is correct. However, effective partnerships involving as many organisations as possible are crucial to the success of a strategy to address community safety issues.
26.
The Chairperson: The question may be difficult, but you have not answered it, and someone must do so. The emphasis of Ms Cousins's presentation was the voluntary partnership and the various groupings working together. However, the legislation says:

"The Department may by order confer or impose on district councils other functions relating to the enhancement of community safety in their district."

27.
That does not tally with what has been said. Why are district councils faced with an imposition when no one else has been?
28.
Mr McConnell: Community safety is important. There is no intention to coerce district councils to become involved; it is voluntary. If, however, following a review of public administration, the Assembly decides that community safety is such an important issue that councils should, and must, be involved, the power is there to allow the Assembly to make that decision. The Department could not, or would not, impose that without the approval of this Committee and the Assembly.
29.
The primarily intention is to ensure that the Assembly can make the condition that councils must become involved in community safety issues if it finds that necessary at some future date.
30.
The Chairperson: Would that not be the appro-priate time to insert it? It goes against everything said this morning.
31.
Mr McConnell: The Department has no ulterior motive in its inclusion. It is there to anticipate any future decision of the Assembly.
32.
The Chairperson: If reorganisation of local government took place, and that involved the shifting of power, surely that would involve new legislation. Would that not be the appropriate time to change the legislation?
33.
Mr McConnell: It is there because we wish to allow the Assembly as much latitude as possible, should it later decide that councils should have that responsibility. Councils already have other responsibilities imposed on them, and the Assembly may decide that it is also something that the Department should require.
34.
Mr Barr: It is essentially an enabling power built into primarily legislation. It would enable the Assembly to pass subordinate legislation requiring councils and other bodies to engage in compulsory, rather than voluntary, community safety if the voluntary scheme were not working successfully. That would happen only after full consultation with district councils, other relevant bodies, Departments, this Committee and other Assembly institutions.
35.
The Chairperson: Who would make the judgement that it was not working?
36.
Mr McConnell: The phrase "not working" was perhaps unfortunate. If it were considered important and turned out to be as successful and worthwhile as the NIO says - and I have no reason to doubt that - the Assembly might decide that such an important issue is not a matter of choice. People automatically turn to the council when an emergency happens in the district. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where councillors are not first in line for criticism. It is a method of ensuring that, if it were such an important matter, the Assembly could impose the duty.
37.
Ms Lewsley: I welcome that move. It is bottom--up and joined-up for a change.
38.
I have reservations about the funding to be given and the longer-term accountability, monitoring and evaluation. Could you explain how that would happen?
39.
As a Lisburn Borough councillor, I wish to ask about the project in Lisburn; is that the one in the Glasvey area?
40.
Ms Cousins: There is a community safety partnership, which is not currently working on specific projects. That is perhaps the Creating Common Ground Consortium. The project in Glasvey has a community safety aspect, which is concerned with lighting and so on. We have a member of staff working on that project.
41.
Ms Lewsley: Is that the one which you mentioned when you spoke about Lisburn - where the charitable status was set up?
42.
Ms Cousins: Lisburn community safety partner-ship has received charitable status. It is currently developing its action plans, having completed community consultations. It has not yet started any projects.
43.
Ms Lewsley: Who is part of that community safety partnership?
44.
Ms Cousins: The council, police, health trust and most of the statutory agencies.
45.
The Chairperson: Who chooses the great and the good?
46.
Ms Cousins: They choose themselves. Initially we write to the interested organisations and invite them to a local meeting to discuss forming a partnership. At the meeting they decide themselves who should be in the partnership.
47.
Ms Lewsley: There is another group connected with Lisburn Borough Council called the "adults at risk" group. It has a multi-agency approach and is seeking funding for a co-ordinator. Will that funding be jeopardised because there is already another project, the two being unaware of each other?
48.
Ms Cousins: I cannot comment on the other project, but the mayor currently chairs the community safety partnership in Lisburn. I should therefore hope that those involved would be aware of what was happening.
49.
Ms Lewsley: I am a councillor, and I was not aware of that. I am on the other group, where there is a multi--agency approach. Any agency going into the homes of elderly people or vulnerable adults must go through a checklist to ensure their safety. The group is looking for a co-ordinator so that we can identify and prove the need. We have worked with the local schools; we have such things as safety chains. I do not know whether it is aware of the other group. There must be better communication and co-ordination throughout.
50.
I also wish to enquire about the monitoring and evaluation of moneys that will go into projects.
51.
Ms Cousins: The funding will go to the partner-ship. It will be given based on the partnership's action plans. We should like to see evidence in those action plans that the projects are based on an analysis of problems and so on. We want to see that the audit has been completed.
52.
Mr McGuckin: The resources that have been made available to support the development and imple-mentation of the strategy will not be sufficient to meet all the needs. That is not the intention; the intention is to support high-quality projects - to provide seed funding and get projects started. If the partnership is set up effectively, we should also anticipate that - and this relates back to the Chairperson's question about who selects those people - the partnership will be made up largely of service-delivery organisations. They will have responsibilities for delivering certain aspects.
53.
In the most effective partnerships, those individual organisations' objectives will be mirrored in the Community Safety Strategy and the community safety action plan. By contributing to the action plan, they achieve their own objectives. They can therefore target the resources they already have at specific issues identified as being of concern to the local community.
54.
Mr McClarty: I too am concerned about the imposition of responsibilities on councils. Responsi-bilities are imposed by central Government, and, more particularly, many are imposed by Europe. Councils have to find the money to carry out those responsi-bilities. I agree with the concept of community safety, and my council has taken advantage of that. It has installed security cameras in town centres, and there has been a significant reduction in crime centrally.
55.
We were recently given a demonstration on the effectiveness of the cameras, and we saw some footage of undesirables creating mayhem in the town centre. Cameras are tremendous for ensuring a community's safety, and they are relatively inexpensive to install. Monitoring is the real expense and a recurring cost. Can you foresee grants towards those costs continuing for the foreseeable future?
56.
Mr McConnell: I cannot comment about the grants or the imposition of responsibility. I do not want to repeat what I have said to the Chairperson, but if a council is being made to spend money, it is easier to justify the expenditure than if it were voluntary. That is not the purpose here. If it is so important and proves to be successful, the Assembly may, at some point, decide that councils should be responsible for it as they are for other matters such as bin collection. That is the only purpose, and there is no ulterior motive. If the Committee wishes, we can go back to the Minister and say that the Committee does not want it. There is no ulterior motive - it is simply a way of allowing the Assembly a measure of control, should that be necessary.
57.
Mr McGuckin: The CCTV schemes were estab-lished as a result of a competition run by the former Police Authority. The grants were purely to cover the set-up costs. It was expected that a partnership would develop in each area, and that that would ensure that they were maintained.
58.
Mr McConnell: Some councils are concerned that money they have spent on CCTVs does not have the necessary legislative cover. Councils can spend up to 5p in the pound on anything they like under section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972. All councils have that money well accounted for. Councils are seeking legislative cover for things such as CCTVs.
59.
Mr Barr: Councils have, through the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), requested statutory cover to enable them to spend money from the rates on community safety if they so wish. The amount of money that they spend will be a local decision taken in council chambers and will depend on the other priorities and expenditure demands that they have. Each council will still have the power to spend what it wants on community safety.
60.
Mr Poots: I am glad that the NIO is here today, because I am very sceptical about the whole idea. While it is fine for a community to get involved and give support to initiatives, the fact is that NIO is responsible for justice and policing. More visible policing is not possible when more police officers are leaving the service than joining it. That is an ongoing problem. Over the past two years there have been significant problems because there are not enough police officers.
61.
The judiciary is worse: people commit crimes, and the police apprehend them, but they are let off with community service and a slap on the wrist. If the police and the judiciary cannot deliver, it is a joke to expect the community to assist. Nothing good will come of this. Communities will just get more work and more hassle but will see no significant benefits unless the judiciary gets its act together and NIO ensures that there are sufficient police.

A member of the Committee left the meeting.

62.
The Chairperson: I cannot continue without a quorum, so I will have to suspend the meeting.

Session suspended.

The member returned to the meeting.

On resuming:

63.
Mr McGuckin: There are three aspects to this: the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the criminal justice system and community involvement. The deployment of the PSNI is a matter for the Chief Constable, so I cannot comment on it. We always consider the effectiveness of sanctions that the courts impose, and evidence of more effective sanctions will be considered.
64.
The criminal justice review, which was the most comprehensive review of the criminal justice system here, identified several new initiatives that are the subject of legislation in Westminster. The youth confer-encing process is aimed at providing young people who are engaged in crime with more effective responses, and the Community Responsibility Order and Reparation Order will, I hope, improve overall effectiveness. Those initiatives are designed to get the most effective response from individuals and to have them address the nature of their offences. They are also designed for earlier intervention with more effective disposal.
65.
Although the community safety strategy contributes to that, as Ms Cousins said, it goes further by tackling the causes of the offences. This is about intervening before people commit crime. The community can become involved in mediation services, facilities for young people, improved lighting and other environ-mental factors. It can say where the needs are and, therefore, influence how statutory agencies respond.
66.
Ms Cousins: We do not expect the community to deliver this alone. It can be involved in identifying the problems and solutions and can work with the statutory agencies that deliver those solutions.
67.
Mr Poots: Our council has already written to the judiciary, with very little response. The judiciary has refused to meet the local authority and wants to keep a hands--off approach as far as talking to public represen-tatives about dealing with criminals is concerned.
68.
You mentioned the causes of crime. Someone who has committed 30 or 40 offences gets a slap on the wrist and is told not to do it again. Some young people have appeared before Lisburn Courthouse on car crime offences and have walked out of the court and stolen a car in which to get home. The community wants a safe environment, and I have no doubt that it will assist in providing it. However, with the best will in the world, there is no point in NIO using the strategy to create a safe environment without putting other, more important, systems in place to achieve it. That point is slightly political and perhaps difficult for you to answer.
69.
The strategy will be meaningless without proper policing. You said that policing is a matter for the Chief Constable - it is not. It is for NIO to give sufficient funds to the Chief Constable. There is a projected £43 million of underfunding in the policing budget for this year, so it is for NIO to get more from the Treasury. This is also a matter for the judiciary, under the direction of NIO.
70.
Mr McGuckin: The community safety strategy cannot stand alone. Mr Poots is entirely right: it is one part of a wider process that, as I mentioned earlier, involves improvements that we are attempting to make in disposals for the young, and that may start to address the car crime scenario.
71.
Mr Armstrong: We may be starting at the wrong place. It is all well and good to have ideas about how to get rid of crime or alleviate it, but the main problem is that funding is not there. We should start with the youth when they are young children and not wait until they are young adults to push money into a scheme when the problem could have been solved at primary school. Education is the way. Young people should be educated about this when they are 10 or 11. That is what you should be looking at. Money will be put into this, and you will expect people, including the police and councillors to implement it when they have no real authority to so do.
72.
You mentioned improved lighting. Although much crime happens at night, much also happens in broad daylight, when lighting is not needed. Cameras are an obvious deterrent, but we need to educate people from the start. That should have been your starting point.
73.
Mr McGuckin: Education authorities must work effectively with other agencies to identify and address the problems with young people's behaviour, as they do with other areas of the curriculum.
74.
Mr Armstrong: They must do that before young people become absorbed in an unnatural way of life, not afterwards.
75.
Mr McConnell: A councillor who was keen to get involved in community safety projects told me that they were not just an opportunity to deal with the superficial problems that have been mentioned, but a means of encouraging and engaging other partners - all of whom can have a role. I am not an expert on that, like the NIO, but that point was made to me.
76.
Mr Armstrong: I appreciate what you have done, but you must reconsider the matter and take it in hand.
77.
The Chairperson: Rebellion in the heart of man is not unnatural. It is the most natural way of life and must be curbed by a greater power - I am speaking with my other hat on. Rebellion must be broken.
78.
Mr McClarty: That is the shortest sermon that the Chairman has preached in a long time.
79.
The Chairperson: I trust that my point has been made.
80.
I want to make two other important points. Your answer to Mr Poots on the Chief Constable's operational responsibilities was inadequate. Bricks cannot be made out of straw. The Chief Constable does not have enough officers to fulfil his operational responsibilities, and that is NIO's responsibility, so it cannot wash its hands of it. Lack of funding is one thing - but what has happened to the police, and the numbers that are leaving, has left us devoid of persons for the Chief Constable to operate with.
81.
The second matter is of equal importance and concern. Funding was £2·5 million in 2002-03, £2·5 million in 2003-04 and will be subject to a successful bid for £2·5 million in 2004-05. There is 100% funding for the next few years to get the councils sucked in. It will then be dropped to 75%, and the councils will be expected to fund the remainder.

"The NIO will fund councils directly, with the first three years financed at 100%. Thereafter, in the form of grant aid at the rate of up to 75% on approved costs. Councils would be expected to fund the remainder."

82.
Mr McClarty referred to that earlier, and that has serious implications, because once again councils are being given responsibility but not funding to do the job, so who is paying for crime? The answer is ratepayers. That is a concern. Why should the Department put that imposition on a council? Rates are a council's only way of finding money that it does not have. This is important, and everyone has given his blessing in principle. At first we did not know all the details; however, we can now point out practical problems. As mentioned earlier, funding is a major problem.
83.
Mr McConnell: To connect imposition to the funding is wrong, and that is not our intention, although I see how that the Committee can draw that conclusion. I assure you that the problem is purely and simply for the reason given earlier. However, the 25% applies to councils and others -
84.
The Chairperson: No. I am sorry. Let me read the words to you - and I did not write them:

"Councils would be expected to fund the remainder."

85.
The words are "would be expected" not "could be expected"; and "others" were not mentioned.
86.
Mr McConnell: I understand.
87.
The Chairperson: I put on my glasses and took them off to ensure that I was reading correctly.
88.
Mr Barr: May I ask the date of that com-munication?
89.
The Chairperson: It was dated 8 March and came from the Minister's office - it is not possible to go higher.
90.
Mr Barr: We were not fully aware then of the funding arrangements for community safety. We were trying to take that clause through the Justice Bill. Time was limited, and a quick submission had to be made. We were not able to discuss the details with NIO, and the communiqué is perhaps not fully accurate, given that we now have further information from NIO. Councils must address the funding of community safety partnerships with the other partners and NIO.
91.
Currently, councils can decide whether they wish to participate in community safety partnerships. After consultation with NIO SOLACE said that they wished to be part of it and that they wanted powers to contribute financially. The amount of the contribution would be for them to decide, bearing in mind their priorities and the other claims on their resources.
92.
The Chairperson: I have heard no objection to the principle from around the table, but we want to ensure that councils faced with problem after problem are not left with a financial burden. Mr Brown made the wonderful announcement that we may have three times the rates to pay for everything, a lovely message from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we are being told that there will be a further burden on the rates. That is no reassurance. You say that you have changed paragraph 6; however, I wish to see it in writing - moreover, in bold writing.
93.
Mr McGuckin: The draft community safety strategy was published for consultation on 10 April, and I draw your attention to chapter 5, page 39, which deals with funding. At that stage the proposal was to provide financial support for the employment of a co-ordinator over three years in the manner suggested - 100%, 100% and 75%. Paragraph 5.7 makes it clear that a full evaluation of the co-ordinator role will be conducted in year 3 to inform further funding arrange-ments. That is the position in the draft strategy, which is at consultation. My point is that funding for the third year might increase to 100% to allow that evaluation to take place.
94.
Secondly, the co-ordinator is a resource for all the organisations in the partnership. To be effective, such a partnership needs a co-ordinator. I assume, if the costs were not met centrally, that they would be met by the partnership rather than by any of its component parts.
95.
Mr McClarty: Community safety is an emotive issue. Councils will be compelled to do this, so it will not be voluntary. Most agencies in the partnership have finite budgets, and if they have to contribute to this, the money will have to come from something else, so funding is a big problem.
96.
The Chairperson: This is a vital matter. Mr McClarty made the point earlier about CCTV. I know from personal experience that two towns committed money to that and then found that the operation was left to the area - that is fact. They got into partnership with the business community, and the business community participated in the debate. However, to the best of my knowledge, it bore only a small part of the financing, and the group left holding the baby was the council.
97.
The paragraph mentioned can mean many things, but it is really saying that 25% is not promised from NIO, so there will be a burden on the councils, and the question is where they will get the money? They are willing to take the challenge if no one else is, but they have to have money to do the job and they need a lead. In my years in public service, a number of other important responsibilities were given to councils, often with introductory grants of 75% for two years and then nothing - since nobody else wanted the responsibilities, the councils had to finance them. However, councils can only finance anything from the rates, so we must have this clarified - if only because we are dealing with a letter which is now out of date.
98.
Mr McConnell: The update on the letter will simply be to include "and others". We just want to give an enabling power to councils, but we have no control over funding at all.
99.
Mr McGuckin: The strategy is currently in draft format and has been published for consultation. These are the proposals that we are making, and I will take on board the Committee's comments. As an initial step, I will cert-ainly be suggesting that NIO funds the third year to 100%.
100.
On Ms Lewsley's earlier point on this element of funding, this will be significant and will take up 30% of the budgets being set aside for it. It will be incumbent on us to evaluate how effective the use of the money is and see whether we should continue to take that approach.
101.
The Chairperson: This is as far as we can go this morning, but you do sense our concerns. The principle is good, and SOLACE is not turning away from it. We have a public duty to point out any problems, and we ask you to consider them and give us direct answers. Thank you very much.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 23 May 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mr McClarty
Mr M Murphy
Mr Watson

Witnesses:
Mr J McConnell )
Mr D Barr ) Department of the Environment
Miss M Finnegan )
Dr T Power )

102.
The Chairperson: The Committee welcomes Mr John McConnell, Mr David Barr, Miss Marie Finnegan and Dr Tracy Power from the Department of the Environment.
103.
At first, we thought that the Bill was straight-forward, but it is more complex than we anticipated. Several points, which were raised in recent debates, have caused concern. We must go through the Bill clause by clause. The Committee received a detailed response from the Department and would appreciate Department officials taking us through it. Have Committee members an interest to declare as councillors?

The Chairperson, Mr M Murphy and Mr McClarty declared an interest.

104.
Mr McConnell: The two experts from the division will take the Committee through the responses.
105.
Miss Finnegan: We shall go through pages 1 to 14 of the submission. Page 1 deals with clause 2(c), which makes provision for requesting information and gathering data in a particular manner for the formula. The regulation allows the Department to seek information, by way of expenditure figures, at a particular time and in a particular format from council chief executives. The details of the format will be spelt out in the subordinate legislation.
106.
The information must be complete, which is why we felt it necessary to have a clause dealing with it. A problem arises if a district council fails to provide the data in the manner requested by the Department. If the Department received information from only 25 councils, and not 26, the formula would be incomplete. Clause 4 provides a means for dealing with such a problem should it arise.
107.
This subsection also covers data from sources other than councils, for example, the Rate Collection Agency, the Valuation and Lands Agency, census data, et cetera. The source of the data, its nature and timing will be spelt out in the subordinate legislation.
108.
The Chairperson: Should there be an enabling provision in this clause to stipulate the consequences of not providing the required information at the time and in the manner required?
109.
Miss Finnegan: That is not necessary in primary legislation, as a clause in it stipulates that councils can be penalised if they are inefficient or if they do not comply with the Department's requests.
110.
Not all information comes from councils: some of it has already been published. We do not anticipate a problem. Difficulty would arise only if councils, for whatever reason, were lagging behind and had not produced their expenditure figures - for example certified figures - by a certain time. If councils had not produced their accounts they could not be certified in time for us to pick them up. That is the only problem that I anticipate.
111.
The Chairperson: The Department told us that it never stipulated which councils had problems pro-ducing data.
112.
Miss Finnegan: Things have improved. Much of what we asked for was new to councils and they presented it to us in the wrong way. There was much toing and froing, which made things difficult. We have been working closely with finance officers at work-shops, and councils now know what is required.
113.
Before determining the figures for the last consul-tation exercise last year, we had great difficulty in getting the adjusted expenditure figures from councils. Some councils were producing one thing while others were producing something else. This year, we have asked for the same information in a pro forma that they understand. I do not think that there will be a problem.
114.
The Chairperson: The Department came from the opposite side when the Committee was dealing with the best value legislation. It had to include certain things because councils were not providing information. It seems that the Department has come round to the Committee's way of thinking.
115.
Mr McConnell: Trust between councils and the Department is vital. We are certain that work done on the finance side will produce an outcome. Everyone involved in this exercise in the councils has an interest in getting it completed correctly. I am not sure that the same could have been said about best value.
116.
Miss Finnegan: Clause 2(4) relates to the regula-tions and it is a definition of the formula:

"the methods, principles and rules of any description".

117.
It will determine the detail of the formula; it alerts the Assembly that the formula is very detailed and comprises different measures and weightings.
118.
The Chairperson: Page 5, paragraph 5, line 1 of the explanatory and financial memorandum states that subsection 4 of clause 2

"allows the Department to amend the subordinate legislation".

119.
Is that right or wrong? Our legal advice is that it does not reflect the wording of clause 2(4). Subsection 4 is a definition only.
120.
Miss Finnegan: The Bill states that it is a definition and that stands on its own. In the explanatory and financial memorandum we tried to bring the two clauses together for greater clarity. One could argue that clause 2(4) does not match exactly the explanatory and financial memorandum. Our answer is based on legal advice. However, in the explanatory and financial memorandum we linked subsections 4 and 2. It may be clearer if we spelt out the link between the two in the Bill itself. We would have to return to our legal advisors on that.
121.
Mr McConnell: We have our legal advice and you have yours. Such discussion, however, is nugatory. Perhaps we could have further consideration on the legal advice.
122.
The Chairperson: If the explanatory and financial memorandum reflects the intention to allow the Depar-tment to amend the subordinate legislation, should clause 2(4) not be amended to reflect this important point?
123.
Miss Finnegan: According to our legal advisors, subsection 4 is a definition only and the two should be read in conjunction.
124.
The Chairperson: We are guided by our legal advice. It was suggested that if the need to amend clause 2(4) is accepted - and that must be checked with your legal advisors and ours - should the words "of any description" not be removed and replaced with wording similar to "to be agreed within the Regulations made under clause 2(1)"? "And rules of any description" is certainly a wide statement.
125.
Miss Finnegan: The words "of any description" were put in to assure Members that all details would be covered in the Regulations, because there is a great deal of data. Any of this data could be replaced over time with better measures. For example, we used the Robson index on deprivation when starting to work on the formula. Midstream, we moved to employment factors, and we ended up with the Noble indices, which seem to be the best measure of deprivation. We use bednights to measure the influx of tourists; councils wanted us to use day trippers, but those statistics are not available. We hope to include them when they become available.
126.
The definition is wide of necessity. At present, we do not know what we may want to change. The Department would not make changes without first consulting councils, particularly those involved in finance and personnel, as they would want to consider the effects. Any change would be made through the subordinate legislation. There would have to be consul-tation, but the subordinate legislation would come before the Committee for the Environment and the Assembly, because it would be by affirmative resolution.
127.
Mr McConnell: It is a response to councils' concerns. Councils wanted issues taken into account on which we did not have the necessary information and to allow us, if that were the consensus, to use the information in future.
128.
The Chairperson: Would the wording to be agreed in the Regulations made under clause 2(1) not be a more appropriate way of dealing with the matter?
129.
Mr McConnell: We have taken legal advice. However, we do not wish the matter to degenerate into a clash of legal opinions. We should like to marry the two to produce something legally valid that the Committee will accept.
130.
Miss Finnegan: We could have introduced a clause to the effect that the Department desired the power to make regulations to distribute the resources element of the general grant and left it at that. However, in clause 2 we have provided an outline of the elements that we wished to include in subordinate legislation. The Committee will see an analysis of each section.
131.
The Chairperson: The wording must reflect the reasons for each clause, and that is where our legal advisors have challenged it.
132.
Mr McConnell: Our difference seems to be not in the desired outcome but in the legal ramifications of the Bill's wording. Perhaps a meeting of both sets of legal advisors could help to resolve the matter.
133.
Miss Finnegan: Would it satisfy the Committee if we outlined a definite link between the two subsections?
134.
The Chairperson: We wish to ensure that the wording is appropriate. It does not help to say that there is a link between the two when the words used mean different things.
135.
Mr McConnell: It would be wrong of us to insist on that when you have received legal advice to the contrary. We shall, of course, check the matter, if the Committee is content.
136.
The Chairperson: We should be more than happy to pass on our legal advice to the Department if that were helpful.
137.
Mr McConnell: That would be very helpful.
138.
Mr A Doherty: What is the legal status of the explanatory and financial memorandum's contents if there is a difference in the interpretation of its wording and that of the Bill?
139.
Miss Finnegan: My understanding is that the explanatory and financial memorandum is not a legal document.
140.
Mr A Doherty: Does it accurately reflect the Bill?
141.
Miss Finnegan: It should match the Bill's clauses, but there is an opportunity in the explanatory and financial memorandum to expand a little.
142.
Mr A Doherty: The important thing is to ensure that the Bill's wording is correct.
143.
Mr McConnell: This is an example of good co-operation with councils. The intention is to ensure that their wants are included.
144.
The Chairperson: The explanatory and financial memorandum gives extensive detail on the formula and the data to be used. Take for example page 1, paragraph 5 and page 5, paragraph 2. If clause 2(4) is to agree with the Regulations - we are suggesting the wording - would this not show that the relevant clauses of the Bill are merely enabling clauses allowing for the introduction of Regulations that will stipulate the full details of the formula?
145.
Miss Finnegan: The Bill's clauses are enabling; they enable the Department to make Regulations. The reg-u-l-a-tions will detail the formula; the Bill does not state it.
146.
The Chairperson: Does the Department agree that it is not for the Committee to scrutinise the formula at this time? It should do that when it receives the draft Regulations?
147.
Miss Finnegan: Yes.
148.
The Chairperson: When will the draft be available? May the Committee see the working draft as soon as possible?
149.
Miss Finnegan: Yes. The Department has done some work on the draft Regulations and is working closely with departmental solicitors. It plans to make a submission to the Minister for permission to move on the draft Regulations by the end of May 2002. It will then start work on subordinate legislation, which should be before the Committee by the end of June. The Department will then work on a policy memo-randum, which should reach the Executive by mid--October. That will be followed by the legislative process of laying the Statutory Regulations with the Business Office in mid-November, followed by a debate in mid-December. The timescale is tight. However, the Department hopes to meet all those deadlines.
150.
The Chairperson: As I say, the Committee would like to see the working draft as soon as possible.
151.
Mr McConnell: It is in the Department's interest to ensure that it is made available to the Committee as soon as possible; it is aware that the Committee will not simply nod legislation through. I asked for the Com-mittee's indulgence and as much speed as possible. Issues must be raised and cleared as quickly as possible.
152.
Miss Finnegan: Clause 2(5) refers to Regulations and provides for refinement of the formula. I referred earlier to the kinds of refinement that could be available. The Department accepts that amendment of this subsection may be necessary. The Department must consult, and that could lead to the amendment of subordinate legislation.
153.
The Chairperson: In accepting consultation with others apart from local councils on clause 4(4), will the Department include the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA)?
154.
Miss Finnegan: The Department does not normally consult those organisations on subordinate legislation. However, it consulted widely on primary legislation because of the equality impact assessment. The Depart-ment consults councils on subordinate legislation because they are involved. It also consults other bodies that are interested in councils, such as the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, the Northern Ireland National Association of Councillors (NAC) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE).
155.
The Chairperson: Surely it would be appropriate to consult NIPSA and NILGA as well?
156.
Miss Finnegan: The Department could consider that. I am not sure whether it does not already consult those organisations.
157.
Mr McConnell: That should not be a problem, because unless consultation is nugatory the Department should consult all organisations. It must consult on all those issues with all those who are involved in local government. If the Committee considers that necessary, the Department will do so until it proves otherwise.
158.
The Chairperson: When will the Committee know whether the clause is to be amended and when will it be informed of the terms of a proposed amendment?
159.
Miss Finnegan: The Department has not yet suggested amended wording for any of the clauses, although a few may need to be amended. The Department has not considered rewording at this stage as it is waiting for a response from councils. It will then deal with that as one exercise.
160.
The Chairperson: What are the provisions of clause 4?
161.
Miss Finnegan: Clause 4 provides for a reduction of the general grant due to misappropriation of funds or excessive expenditure.
162.
The Department was asked whether it could put a figure on this, but we would have to deal with each case as it arose. The Department would consider the local government auditor's report and submit a report to the Assembly in due course; that is part of the requirement. The wording in the Bill is a pick-up from the existing legislation; we did not change the wording.
163.
The Chairperson: The Department says that it cannot give a precise figure as that would depend on the cirumstances of the council in question. However, clause 4(1)(b) states

"having regard to its financial resources and other relevant circumstances,"

164.
which is a much broader statement and could bring any circumstance into consideration.
165.
Mr McConnell: Councils will welcome that, because they wish other circumstances to be taken into account before action is taken. Councils may wish to make representations on matters that they believe should be taken into account, which would not make it excessive. We will depend largely on the local government auditor and the councils for the information they have for defrayal. Someone may say that it is wrong to the nth degree, but the council may have other things to ameliorate that.
166.
Miss Finnegan: Other factors than finances may be involved - we need the data. A council may have failed to submit its annual reports. That is important. Under the 1972 Act, the Department directs councils to submit their reports by a certain date - for example, this year they must submit their reports by 31 July. We are moving towards submission of reports by 30 June. The general grant reduction may be used to achieve that, if necessary. It has not been used to date, but the Department would have to consider it as a means of ensuring that councils comply with the direction.
167.
Mr McConnell: In this exercise we have been dealing with finance officers, and that has been worthwhile in establishing a working relationship. We do not order councils to do this or to do that; we consult them on everything. They will then agree whether this is a reasonable approach or not.
168.
Miss Finnegan: If a report is not submitted by 31 July, there will not automatically be a drastic reduc-tion in the grant. We would liaise with council about the delay, and we would perhaps set a target after negotia-tions. However, if nothing happened and there was inefficiency in the council, the Department would have to act.
169.
Mr Ford: You said that the report of the local government auditor would have to be considered. Should subsections 1 and 2 not spell out that it is on the foot of a report from the auditor that the Department takes action? It is implied but not explicit.
170.
I am afraid that I am unclear about the procedure. The Department would "recommend"the amount to be deducted from the general grant. There is no mention of "recommendation" in the Bill; it speaks of Regulations being made subject to negative resolution. If it is a recommendation, presumably the Department can only recommend it to the Assembly. I praised you earlier this week for getting away from negative resolution in most cases. Should this not require an affirmative resolution of the Assembly, as that is the only interpretation I can place on the Department's "recom-mending" as opposed to the Department's sliding something through while everybody is asleep?
171.
Mr McConnell: The Department has no intention of sliding anything past anybody. I assure the Committee that the last year has demonstrated that, if the Department even attempted to do that, there are too many people around this table to call the Department to task.
172.
Mr Ford: Why not make that clause affirmative, like the others?
173.
Miss Finnegan: We should not have used the word "recommend" in our answer; we should have said that the Department would "determine" the amount to be deducted from the general grant. The clause is one of several that use the wording of the 1972 Act. I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to the local government auditor in the Bill - that is a procedural matter.
174.
The Department would not know about those matters unless the auditor reported them to us. If a ratepayer reported it to the Department, the Department would go directly to the auditor to check the accusation that had been made against the council and to obtain evidence. It could come to light in the annual report. If it does not, the Department can ask the auditor to carry out a special audit. It is understood that the auditor is the Department's source of information.
175.
Mr Ford: I can accept that point somewhat easier that the second point, which you have not answered. Why is the clause a negative resolution when everything else in the Bill is affirmative?
176.
Miss Finnegan: I did not think that that was an issue. We are not making an Order. The Department makes a written report to the Assembly, by way of information, that contains all the details of the case.
177.
Mr Ford: If the Department reports to the Assembly, what is the procedure for somebody taking action on the foot of that report?
178.
Miss Finnegan: By the time the Assembly received the report, the Department would have taken action and determined the amount to be deducted from the council's grant.
179.
Mr Ford: Therefore, the point that matters is that, as the Bill stands, the Regulations made by the Depar-tment are subject only to negative resolution. A report issued months after the event is irrelevant if the Department has made Regulations that enforce its decision.
180.
Miss Finnegan: I do not see this as the Department making an Order or Regulations.
181.
Mr Ford: That is what the Bill says. Clause 4(5) mentions Regulations under the section. I think that the Department is making Regulations.
182.
Miss Finnegan: I understand where confusion arises. Regulations under that section are subject to negative resolution. That relates to subsections (3) and (4) only. It has nothing whatsoever to do with subsections (1) and (2). I missed your point.
183.
Mr Ford: Subsection (5) says: "Regulations under this section". It does not say: "Regulations under subsections (3) and (4)". If there is any confusion, it is not on the part of the Committee.
184.
Miss Finnegan: I accept responsibility for the confusion; that will have to be clarified. Subsection (5) does not relate to subsections (1) and (2); it relates to subsections (3) and (4) only.
185.
Mr Ford: Therefore, under subsection (2), a red-uction in grant is simply a matter of the Department reporting to the Assembly that it is taking action without having to seek approval from the Assembly to do so.
186.
Miss Finnegan: That is correct. The Department would report to the Assembly stating the case, giving the details of the auditor's report and stating the amount that the Department had decided was appropriate to deduct from the grant.
187.
Mr Ford: If the Assembly deemed that the Department's actions were not appropriate, what would be the procedure to reverse that decision?
188.
Miss Finnegan: I do not know that that particular decision could be reversed.
189.
Mr Ford: Will you explain how that would fit in under the European Convention on Human Rights? The concept that the legislature deemed that the actions of civil servants were inappropriate and could not be reversed seems to be a fundamental breach of human rights.
190.
Miss Finnegan: The Department would have to fully justify its decision in its report to the Assembly.
191.
The Chairperson: The Department does not have to justify anything. It has the power to take that action, and whether it justifies it or not, the Assembly can do nothing about it. If it were the Assembly's opinion of the Assembly that the action taken by the Department was not justifiable, there should be a right of redress.
192.
Miss Finnegan: That is taken from the current legislation, although that does not mean that it should not be changed. There has never been a report, although the legislation was to be laid before Parliament.
193.
The Chairperson: The words "laying before Parliament" mean nothing.
194.
Miss Finnegan: I know that it is a formality.
195.
Mr McConnell: There is nothing in the legislation that allows for that procedure. We need to look at that and ensure that there is a procedure in place. Apart from the human rights aspect, we must consider the primacy of the Assembly.
196.
Miss Finnegan: What you want would require the clause to be changed substantially, which is possible. It could be changed so that the Department would make a recommendation to the Assembly, and no deduction would be made until the Assembly approved that recommendation.
197.
Mr Ford: That is what I thought subsection (5) meant, until you told me that subsection (5) did not mean what it says.
198.
Miss Finnegan: As I have said, subsection (5) does not relate to subsections (1) and (2).
199.
Mr McConnell: The point is well made, and it is something that we shall address. All that I have said relates to the primacy of the Assembly, and we want to take that, and the human rights aspect, into account.
200.
The Chairperson: I return to clause 4(1)(a). What measure will the Department use to determine that

"a reasonable standard of economy"

has been achieved? How is excessive expenditure defined?
201.
Mr McConnell: Councils are required to seek best value under Local Government (Best Value) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. Were the local government auditor to suggest that things could be done better by looking at different aspects, that may be one area in which we could look at economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
202.
In clause 4(1)(b), the word "excessive" is taken into account when the local government auditor reports back on what the expenditure has been.
203.
The Chairperson: Do you say that the local gov-er-n-ment auditor has sole responsibility for determi-n-ing a reas-on-able standard of economy and excessive expenditure?
204.
Mr McConnell: Yes.
205.
The Chairperson: It is not the Department's responsibility?
206.
Mr McConnell: The Department would determine that based on a report from the auditor. If someone writes to us and says - however unlikely this may be - that a district council is behaving badly, the matter is referred to the local government auditor. It would the auditor's decision as to whether there was any evidence to support the accusation. The Department would exercise its judgement at that point.
207.
The Chairperson: Is it the Department or the local government auditor that determines the amount of deduction?
208.
Miss Finnegan: The Department would determine the amount of deduction, not the local government auditor. The Department would have to take into account how much grant the council gets. Some councils do not get very much, although others get substantial grant. Could the entire grant, be withheld or, as a warning, could it be reduced by a small amount?
209.
Mr McConnell: That is where the Assembly comes into play. What role does it have to play in the determination of that exercise?
210.
The Chairperson: You have placed so much emphasis on the local government auditor, yet the auditor is not mentioned anywhere in the legislation.
211.
Mr McConnell: The local government auditor is -
212.
The Chairperson: He is a shadowy figure in the background.
213.
Miss Finnegan: The local government auditor's responsibilities are set out clearly in the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 and subsequent Orders.
214.
The Chairperson: However, if it is not clearly laid out as his assessment, the Department could carry out the assessment. You are saying that the local government auditor assesses the key areas of the reasonable standard of the economy and excessive expenditure.
215.
Mr McConnell: He will report to us.
216.
The Chairperson: When it is not clearly laid out that you refer to the local government auditor, the Depart-ment could make the determination. Is that not correct?
217.
Miss Finnegan: The Department would not have the evidence without obtaining the information from the local government auditor. The Department receives figures, but we do not analyse councils' accounts.
218.
The Chairperson: Why is that not included for clarity?
219.
Mr McConnell: The second part of that would be the follow-on.
220.
The Chairperson: That follow-on concerns the Assembly's responsibility and authority.
221.
Mr McConnell: We shall certainly look at that. I need to check the provisions of the 1972 Act, how they cover this legislation and whether it is simply a reference to that Act.
222.
Miss Finnegan: The words that we have used in the clause are exactly as in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1982.
223.
The Chairperson: However, as you know, authority and responsibility have dramatically changed. Therefore, just because it was included in that Act does not mean that it should remain. If something was neglected, that does not mean that we should neglect it in our legislation.
224.
Mr McConnell: Or whether it simply means, from a legal point of view, a reference to earlier legislation.
225.
Miss Finnegan: The questions on the reduction of the general grant deal with much of what we have been discussing. The next area covers economic development and the provisions for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to issue directions. We discussed those areas with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. It does not intend to issue further legislation. It thought that it would issue similar guidance to that which the former Department of the Environment issued in 1992. It also said that it would be non-statutory.
226.
Mr Ford: In that case, I am at a loss as to what the word "directions" means in clause 6(4).
227.
Mr McConnell: The last sentence in the answer -
228.
Mr Ford: The Bill uses the term "directions". You talk about guidance and specifically used the term "non-statutory". What does the word "directions" mean?
229.
Mr McConnell: Mr Ford previously raised that point. The last paragraph of the Department's answer to the Committee says:

"The Department would accept that clarification in the wording of this clause and in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum will be necessary."

230.
You are correct that directions are not guidance.
231.
Mr Ford: It is more than the wording. Many Departments issue guidance, but if it is non-statutory, surely it should not be mentioned at all.
232.
Miss Finnegan: Councils cannot do what they like in relation to economic development; they must work within parameters. That would be in the form of guidelines issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. When the Department of the Environment was responsible for it, we always had to be careful when approving projects that our guidelines were being followed. We did not want councils to duplicate what LEDU or the IDB were doing. Guidelines are needed so that there are parameters within which councils can operate.
233.
As Mr McConnell said, we must amend the wording to make clear that they are guidelines rather than a formal direction.
234.
Mr McConnell: In many ways, we are speaking about another Department. I understand that the intention is to ensure that there is no duplication of effort. It is as simple as that. For that purpose, councils should adhere to the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Invest-ment's guidelines.
235.
Mr Ford: Do you suggest that there will be guidelines and that the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment will have a role in saying what councils may or may not do? It seems to me that you are still skating somewhere between a formal piece of legislation and informal guidance without being entirely sure which it is. There is also nothing in that subsection that relates to consultation with district councils to draw up any guidelines, directions or Regulations.
236.
The Chairperson: Although guidelines sound perfectly simple and helpful, we must know what they are. Clause 6(4) says "a council shall exercise", not "might exercise".
237.
Mr McConnell: That is why we must examine the wording. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's primary intention is simply to ensure that 26 district councils are not doing their own thing in economic development willy-nilly.
238.
The Chairperson: Time and time again it has been voiced as a concern in the information that we have hitherto received from district councils. There must therefore be proper and meaningful consultation on what the word "guidelines" means.
239.
Mr McConnell: How that consultation is reflected in the legislation is a matter for us to discuss with the Department of Trade, Enterprise and Investment. I presume that it would be along the lines of guidelines drawn up following consultation with councils. There must be some way for councils to do what they feel they need to do while ensuring that it does not in any way compromise other activities in the area.
240.
The Chairperson: Must the guidelines be backed up by secondary legislation?
241.
Miss Finnegan: The Department of, Enterprise, Trade and Investment has conveyed to us that that is not its intention.
242.
The Chairperson: I should like to know exactly what its intention is before I approve something of which I have no clear understanding.
243.
Mr McConnell: We must return with the rewording in any case, and the point that you make about consultation is extremely salient. We shall need to consult with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about what it intends to do to satisfy the Committee regarding consultation.
244.
Mr Ford: I have another question on clause 6, although not on subsection (4). I raised the issue of vesting land with the Minister in the Chamber. His response was that it was covered not by this Bill but elsewhere. He did not make clear whether the powers laid down elsewhere would extend to economic develop-ment. Clarification would be helpful, although it need not come today.
245.
Miss Finnegan: We need legal advice on that, but our understanding is that the provision in the Bill gives councils the power to acquire, hold and develop land. The Minister referred to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which gives general powers to councils to acquire and vest land. There is substantial legislation. Our understanding is that something more may be needed - perhaps a separate clause to allow councils to vest land specifically for economic development.
246.
Mr Ford: That is the apparent lacuna. It is unclear when the economic development powers were granted, and now is surely the opportunity to address that.
247.
Miss Finnegan: Yes. If our solicitors say that what we have is sufficient, councils will have the power to acquire land for economic development. That is now a function of the council. That is acceptable as far as vesting is concerned because it is covered by the 1972 Act. If the solicitors say that, there is nothing more to be done. However, if they say that a separate clause is needed for councils to vest land for economic development purposes, it will have to be included.
248.
Mr McConnell: Mr Ford is correct - it is complex. The Department for Social Development has powers of vesting for the acquistion of land. There is still much to cover on that.
249.
The Chairperson: You will have to come back to answer questions that we did not ask have time to ask today and to clarify several other points. Have councils specifically consulted on the precise terms of clause 6?
250.
Miss Finnegan: The answer that I had submitted to the Committee on whether councils had been consulted on the precise terms of the clause was wrong. The problem is that we are caught between the old Department of the Environment and the old Department of Economic Development. We are trying to piece everything together to see exactly what happened. I understood that the consultation on 27 November 1997 was on the precise terms of the clause. The consultation was, in fact, on the proposals as announced by Lord Dubs at that time. There was, however, a good response to those proposals - 23 out of 26 councils responded - but it was not on the detail of the clause itself. The old Department of the Environment had preferred the clause contained in this Bill.
251.
The Chairperson: That was on 11 September 1997. Several councils have written to the Committee about their concerns. They agree on the need to move in that direction, but they must have the situation clarified to know exactly to what they are agreeing. The letter of 11 September 1997 does not appear to contain anything of note.
252.
Miss Finnegan: A discussion paper, of which you have a copy, went out to councils following that announcement.
253.
Mr McConnell: It is unfortunate, but what Miss Finnegan has said is absolutely true. This piece of legislation fell to another Department. There was then pressure from the councils, mainly because of European Community money and how to obtain and use it. We responded late in the day. There were shortcomings.
254.
The Chairperson: The Committee can help by allowing you to have the responses it has received from councils on the economic development subsection, if that would help.
255.
Mr McConnell: It would.
256.
The Chairperson: It is a guide to the councils' thinking. We can help to get a clear understanding of what local government is saying. The Committee has received 15 responses to its request and more will arrive. Mr Barr, I am sorry that you did not get to speak today.
257.
Mr McConnell: He has been busy with commun-ity safety.
258.
The Chairperson: I hope that you listened to the debate on 20 May about community safety, and have taken on board some of the comments. Many people thought that this was a simple situation that was going to be accepted without question, but there is much concern. The Department must to answer matters that were raised in the debate - for example, duplication and fragmentation of responsibility.
259.
Mr Barr: To be fair, some of those questions might be better addressed to the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) rather than the Department of the Environment.
260.
The Chairperson: If that is so, we shall get the NIO to come along at the same time to assist you. We are happy to do that.
261.
Mr McConnell: We shall work with the Com-mittee staff to see where the balance lies.
262.
The Chairperson: That is perfectly acceptable.
263.
Mr Barr: The NIO is consulting at present on the community safety strategy, which is open until 5 July. That gives ample opportunity for consultees to raise those particular issues that were raised in the House, and for NIO to address those issues. If the Committee wishes to raise concerns about the strategy, I am sure it would be free to do so.
264.
The Chairperson: The Committee must find out what the responses are to those issues that have been raised in the Assembly. We need to ascertain whether the answers are satisfactory. Those points arose in the debate, and we cannot run away from that. It is better to do it now, because they will come up again in the Assembly.
265.
Mr McConnell: Some of the issues raised can be answered without further reference to the consultation paper. The NIO may wish to talk about some issues, but that is entirely a matter for that office.
266.
The Chairperson: Work with the Committee staff, because the Committee will be happy to facilitate you in any way it can.
267.
Mr McConnell: Thank you for that offer. Frankly, it is my strong belief that, if the situation continues, nothing will happen, which is to the detriment of everyone.
268.
The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your attendance.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 30 May 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mr McClarty
Mr M Murphy
Mr Poots
Mr Watson

Witnesses:
Mr David Barr ) The Department of
Ms Marie Finnegan ) the Environment
Dr Tracy Power )
Mr John McConnell )

269.
The Chairperson: There are some outstanding issues that you may want to address before we move on to the other questions.
270.
Ms Finnegan: I shall update you, clause by clause, on what the Department has done. As regards clause 2(4), the Department has accepted that it will amend the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to match the Bill, but it will not amend the Bill. It will do that on the basis of legal advice. The subsection is simply a definition of "formula". We have agreed to amend the wording of clause 2(5) to reflect the consultation of district councils and other bodies that represent them.
271.
The Chairperson: As regards clause 2(4), if the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is wrong - as we drew to your attention in questions (a) and (b) - where in the Bill is the power to amend the Regulations relating to the formula?
272.
Ms Finnegan: I shall clarify the effect of the different subsections of clause 2. Clause 2(1) is an enabling power to make Regulations for the formula; subsection 5 is also an enabling power. It will be used to introduce any supplementary provisions or refinements by Regulation. When we introduce the formula for the first time, it will be on the strength of clause 2(1); however, if we wish to revise the data used in the formula, we will lean on subsection 5. We would consult councils on any changes that we propose, and we would then draft subordinate legislation to bring before the Committee.
273.
Mr Ford: The Department referred today to consultation on subsection 5 solely with district councils and other bodies. The Committee asked about consultation with other interests such as staff. Do you intend to confine the legislative reference to consultation with councils, or will you include other appropriate bodies?
274.
Ms Finnegan: I said "other bodies representative of councils".
275.
Mr Ford: Yes. However, that is not what I was talking about.
276.
Ms Finnegan: The Department, if it wishes to extend the exercise, could consult with any body.
277.
The Chairperson: The wording of clause 4(4) implies a limit, because it is specific. It refers to

"such associations or bodies representative of councils".

278.
The council will make the decisions. As we asked at a previous meeting, will the consultation include the representatives of council workers, for example, the unions?
279.
Ms Finnegan: The Department will revise the wording of that subsection. It will ensure that consultation extends to bodies such as the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA).
280.
Mr McConnell: The Department is still discussing the issue, but it could refer to "other interested bodies", for example.
281.
Mr Ford: I would be happy with that. However, the document mentions only consultation with district councils - not the other relevant bodies.
282.
The Chairperson: That is an important point; the Committee wants to ensure that the consultation includes bodies representative of councils and other interested parties, including representative of council workers.
283.
Mr McConnell: There was no intention to exclude anyone. It was purely an effort to get those people who had - [interruption].
284.
The Chairperson: The Committee will take that in good faith, but we would like to see it in writing.
285.
Mr McConnell: You will see it.
286.
Ms Finnegan: The Department accepts the Committee's view on clause 4 and will re-draft subsections 4(1) and 4(2) to update the existing legislation. The Committee will recall that the draft mirrored the existing provisions; therefore, it will have a different effect. The legislation will spell out the role of the Local Government Auditor with reference to his reporting a case to the Department; the role of the Department in recommending to the Assembly the amount to be deducted from the general grant; and the role of the Assembly in approving the reduction. No reduction will be made without the Assembly's approval. The wording of the Bill will be changed substantially.
287.
The Chairperson: The Committee asked before about the wording of clause 4(1)(b), which mentions "any other relevant circumstances". Would it not be better to make that clearer, by rewording it to "other circumstances relevant to a district council"?
288.
Ms Finnegan: I shall use an example to explain that point. The Department said that it felt the need to retain the wording "other relevant circumstances".
289.
The Chairperson: You misunderstand me. I do not claim that those words should be excluded. However, the Committee suggests that the phrase "other circu-mstances relevant to a district council" might be clearer. The wording must be examined carefully.
290.
Ms Finnegan: We will reconsider the matter. Would it require a big extension?
291.
Mr McConnell: We will return to the Committee when we have reviewed the matter. Would it help if we discussed a district council's functions or other relevant points?
292.
Ms Finnegan: Some points about clause 4 have not been clarified. They were not specifically referred to in the Committee's letters, but they have since been raised. Clause 4(5), which we discussed last week, states:

"Regulations under this section shall be subject to negative resolution."

293.
Subsection 5 relates directly to subsection 3(a), which contains the wording "specified in regulations". In addition, that provision relates indirectly to subsection 4, which refers to subsection 3 as regards consultation. The Regulations are not referred to in every section; however, subsection 5 states that, where they are referred to, they should be subject to negative resolution.
294.
The preference of negative resolution over affirma-tive resolution is based on legal advice that, in this instance, negative resolution is the correct procedure. The reason is that the Regulations would not impose financial burdens or raise statutory limits on the amounts that may be borrowed by, or granted to, public bodies. We have been advised that in certain circum-stances there must be an affirmative resolution; however, in this case our legal advisers are satisfied that a negative resolution is appropriate.
295.
Mr Ford: Clause 4(5) has been clarified, although I accept that that is subject to the precise rewording of subsections 1 and 2. You have rectified my inability to distinguish between Regulations and reports, a distinction that was unclear last week.
296.
I am still not entirely persuaded by your previous point. Negative resolution may be legally acceptable for Regulations made under subsection 3, but that does not persuade the Committee that it should not prefer affirmative resolution.
297.
Mr McConnell: The Department has no choice; its legal adviser said that we must apply the method of negative resolution.
298.
The Chairperson: It may be helpful if the Committee seeks legal advice on the matter.
299.
Mr McConnell: If the Committee's legal advice conflicts with ours, we should discuss that.
300.
The Chairperson: The Committee can assist in that way.
301.
Ms Finnegan: Clause 6 deals with economic development. The Department conveyed the Committee's views on clause 6(4) to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. We will meet departmental officials next Wednesday, the soonest date that we could arrange, to examine the wording and to address the matters of directions and consultation.
302.
Mr McConnell: At our meeting with the Depart-ment, we will convey the Committee's view of how the Bill should progress.
303.
The Chairperson: The Committee will have to wait to see the wording of the subsection.
304.
Ms Finnegan: On page nine of the original index of questions, the Department was asked whether councils retained all the proceeds of the disposal of land.
305.
The Chairperson: Can we deal with page seven first?
306.
Ms Finnegan: Yes. I apologise. In response to a question last week, I said that we had not consulted on the specific terms of the clause, but that we had consulted on the proposals of the 1997 consultation. There was a big response from councils, 23 of which supported the proposal to drop the 5p limit and to extend the powers to those councils that could acquire land, et cetera. Comments were made about going further than that, but the two Departments at that time, the former Department of the Environment (DOE) and the former Department of Economic Development (DED), would probably have considered those and did not take anything further on board. The draft legislation is exactly what was agreed then. There are no problems with that, and we will talk to DETI about directions, guidance, consultation, and so forth.
307.
Mr McConnell: Until earlier this year, minimal pressure was put on the Department about this exercise. We tried to take a finance Bill through late, because of Peace II money and other factors. Councils prevailed upon us to fulfil our earlier obligations, that is to say, the responsibilities of all the Departments, not necessarily ours. We agreed that the legislation would be used as a vehicle to alter councils' functions and to enable them to go beyond the 5p limit.
308.
That is the history, and I am trying to get the legislation through so that councils can quickly obtain the Peace II moneys. We are addressing councils' issues with them, but we need to do more work on this.
309.
The Chairperson: What are you doing with the requests for the removal of the 5p expenditure limit?
310.
Ms Finnegan: The existing legislation will be repealed, which will remove the 5p limit. That is not mentioned in the wording of the draft Bill, but it is unnecessary because of the repeal.
311.
The Chairperson: Are you introducing any limit to replace the 5p limit?
312.
Ms Finnegan: No.
313.
A letter from the Committee, dated 23 May, raised the equality impact assessment, which was described in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That memorandum does not cover economic development, as the consultation took place before equality impact assessments were required. We propose to screen the economic development proposals, and we can do that fairly quickly and insert the results in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum as an amendment. It is possible that there will be no differential impact, but we must go through the procedure to ascertain that.
314.
The Chairperson: The original question was whether councils had been specifically consulted about the precise terms of clause 6(4). Will the councils be consulted?
315.
Mr McConnell: The Department is trying to enable councils to work beyond the 5p limit, and other relevant issues must be addressed. For the purposes of this exercise, the Department assumes that 23 of the 26 councils want to exercise their economic functions more freely. However, that requires more consultation, because some councils want to do more, and others wish to do less.
316.
Ms Finnegan: The Department will be in a better position to assess that situation when it has examined the councils' responses.
317.
Mr McConnell: Some councils say that they want more power - perhaps they should have that. However, the prime function is to enact the legislation. If consultation is required on further issues, it is unlikely that the Bill will be passed. The Department is reflecting councils' need for freedom to go beyond 5p in the pound. However, I will get back to you on the matter.
318.
Ms Finnegan: Page nine asks whether councils retain all proceeds from the disposal of land. Section 59 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 requires that capital receipts derived from the sale of any asset held by a council be initially offset against the repayment of any borrowings in relation to that asset. If there are no borrowings, or if only part of it needs to be offset against the borrowings, the council must come to the Department for approval to use those capital receipts for another purpose.
319.
Last week, we discussed councils' vesting powers in relation to economic development. Does the Committee want those powers built into the draft legislation? At present vesting powers are not allowed.
320.
Mr Ford: I raised that point because a councillor asked me whether vesting powers were included. Last week you implied that vesting powers did not exist for the economic development function, even though they do in respect of other functions of the council. Why is that?
321.
Mr McConnell: That will have to be discussed with other Departments, because problems could arise. For instance, a situation may arise in which a council and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure wish to vest the same land for development. That will not necessarily be the case, but it will be investigated if the Committee wishes the Department to do so.
322.
Mr Ford: Under the current vesting powers, is a council not required to have departmental approval to vest?
323.
Mr McConnell: I do not suggest that economic development vesting powers are necessarily easy to confer, or that they are similar to other such powers. There are some differences, and departmental officials will explore those and outline them to the Committee later. A Department's vesting powers for economic development may cut across those of a council, thereby creating difficulties. For example, a big development is proposed in Belfast, for which one Department seeks to acquire land. Belfast City Council may not agree to provide that land; it may want it for another purpose. We need to consider such factors.
324.
If the Committee so wishes, the Department will return to confirm whether vesting powers in respect of economic development can be extended.
325.
Mr Ford: There is potential for conflict between different public bodies, but that does not apply solely to councils' economic development powers. That is why I suggested that if the Department's approval is required for a council to vest, in any circumstances, it should negotiate with other Departments. In attempting to extend councils' economic development powers, it would be illogical not to allow them vesting powers for that purpose, given that they have them for other functions.
326.
Mr McConnell: The Department will report back on that issue. We are not opposed to the councils' having vesting powers; we simply want to ensure that we make the correct decisions.
327.
Mr A Doherty: The Department should consider that, according to some councillors, there would be sig-nificant benefits in including vesting powers in the Bill, as it would enable them to acquire brownfield sites that might not otherwise have been available to them.
328.
Mr Barr: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the community safety strategy. In my response, I will review to the queries that were raised. Under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill there are two forms of community safety partnership (CSP): voluntary CSPs, to be established under section 70 of the Bill, and permanent CSPs, which the NIO suggested should be formed under section 71.
329.
Our Bill is concerned only with empowering councils to engage in voluntary CSPs. We must take care not to commit councils to permanent CSPs, which would have to be fully examined and consulted upon separately if, and when, the time is appropriate. The NIO said in its strategy that it did not propose to introduce permanent CSPs until the review of public administration has taken place. It would be wrong of the Department to advise the Committee, or anyone else, to commit district councils to permanent CSPs.
330.
Clause 7(1) of the Local Government (Miscellan-eous Provisions) Bill confers on councils the discretionary power to engage in voluntary CSPs. Clause 7(2) is not connected with permanent CSPs; it enables the Assembly to introduce a further dimension to community safety. For example, if provisions in respect of voluntary CSPs do not enable councils to carry out a preferred activity, the Assembly may confer additional powers; hence the use of the term "other" in the Bill. Alternatively, the Assembly may wish to place statutory duties on councils, hence the use of the term "impose". The Department would not impose any duty on councils without the will of the Assembly, and we made that clear in the Bill. It would be by affirmative resolution. It is important to remember that clause 7(2) does not override clause 7(1).
331.
Ms Lewsley: If a council does not voluntarily create a community safety partnership, I assume that it cannot apply for the available funding?
332.
Mr Barr: That is correct; the NIO is clear on that. It would fund the voluntary CSPs under section 70 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill; therefore, a council would have to engage in CSPs to avail of that funding.
333.
Mr Poots: Should not the "permanent" CSPs referred to under section 71 be described as "statutory" partnerships?
334.
Mr Barr: I used the terms "voluntary" and "statutory" in my response in order to distinguish between the two. A further statutory power may be intro-duced by the NIO or a devolved Administration later.
335.
Mr Poots: In outlining clause 7(1), you referred to voluntary community safety activity. Do you intend to include the word "voluntary" in the Bill?
336.
Mr Barr: I do not think so, because we define clearly what we mean by CSPs in clause 7(4):

" 'Community safety partnership' means a body established for an area in accordance with the community safety strategy devised by the Secretary of State under section 70 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002".

337.
That is in response to the provision created by section 70 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. It is meant to be a so-called voluntary CSP, established under section 70 of that Bill.
338.
Mr Poots: I still do not accept that the word "impose" needs to be included in clause 7(2). If it is a voluntary scheme, "confer" is a strong enough word to introduce additional powers, if that is so desired by local authorities.
339.
Mr Barr: Subsection 2 exists to enable the Assembly to introduce additional community safety powers, which may apply to all councils, if it wishes to do so. Some councils might not enter into voluntary CSPs, but the Assembly may decide that it wants all councils to carry out a certain activity under the community safety strategy. The word "impose" is included because provision is being made in primary legislation that will enable the Assembly to introduce subordinate legislation in the future.
340.
Mr Poots: Does clause 2 refer specifically to section 70 and not to section 71?
341.
Mr Barr: Clause 2 is specific only to section 70 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
342.
Mr Poots: The Assembly can choose to impose it; therefore the CSP is not a voluntary function for local authorities.
343.
Mr Barr: If it is the will of the Assembly, it can introduce an additional community safety power. I am not referring to the permanent CSPs, which may follow under section 71.
344.
Mr Poots: That is my concern. You are consider-ing introducing powers to enable the Assembly to impose the "voluntary" CSPs on local authorities, despite the fact that they had not previously volun-teered to participate in them.
345.
Mr Barr: We cannot predict what the will of the Assembly will be in a year's time. Circumstances may change, with the result that the Assembly will wish to introduce an additional community safety power for all councils; hence the creation of the provision. However, that provision will be subject to detailed consultation with all local government interests, including this Committee. It would have to be passed through the Assembly by a process of affirmative resolution.
346.
Mr Poots: I am trying to clarify this: if that provision is included, the voluntary aspect will be removed from section 70, because the Assembly will be able to override local authorities and create statutory obligations.
347.
Mr McConnell: The Assembly can override local authorities in many circumstances; no trickery or deviousness is intended. For example, it was suggested in the NIO's consultation paper that the community safety exercise and function would be transferred to the Assembly and the Executive. The Department was merely trying to provide for the possibility that the Assembly might wish to take that course; it is not a big issue.
348.
The Chairperson: A more basic question remains. Councils find it difficult to get money for meaningful or urgent functions. I refer you to the Assembly's debate, which I must consider. We hope to seek the opinion of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) because the Bill proposes to duplicate a duty that already exists. Councils will be paying for, and looking after, two groupings whose functions are identical - the community safety partner-ship and the district policing partnership.
349.
Given that public bodies have to fight to acquire finance for major functions, where is the sense in giving councils £2 million to carry out a duplicate function? Councils are not crying out for duplicated functions; they need £2 million to fund their current functions, which they cannot finance. That point was raised in the House, therefore it must be considered, and I fear that the Assembly will vote against the Bill on that basis. The matter was highlighted by MLAs who are not members of the Environment Committee and by MPs at Westminster. The Department should reconsider the matter with the NIO. No council should have two committees that carry out the same function. Members of this Committee have declared their interests as councillors, so we know how difficult it is to get sufficient officers to carry out work, because they are strapped for finance.
350.
Mr McConnell: There is no problem here, and the change did not happen as a result of the Department's discussions with the NIO. The Department might not have been accused of being too helpful in the past; however, it will review the matter and come back to the Committee.
351.
The Chairperson: I refer you to the debate in the Assembly.
352.
Mr McConnell: If the Committee and the Assembly believe that the provision should not be included, we will look at it again and report back on the matter.
353.
The Chairperson: The questions that were asked in the Assembly deserve to be answered. It would be remiss of the Committee to ignore Members' opposition to the provision.
354.
Mr McConnell: The Department was asked to facilitate councils' ability to adopt a community safety strategy, but it does not want to contradict the will of the Committee or the Assembly. Its aim was simply to facilitate councils. I heard about community safety for the first time on 25 February 2002. The Committee has helped the Department to reach this stage of the process, and it will seek to resolve any difficulties.
355.
The Chairperson: The debate in the Assembly raised matters that I had not considered, but they deserved to be reviewed. I ask the Department to do that before continuing to discuss the matter.
356.
Mr Barr: I believed that the Committee was consulting with the NIO, because it led the initiative.
357.
The Chairperson: It is.
358.
Mr Barr: I assume that the Committee deals directly with the NIO.
359.
The Chairperson: Yes.
360.
Mr McConnell: It is our collective responsibility to enact this legislation in order to allow councils to do what they wish. The Department will return to the Committee on that point.
361.
The Chairperson: Your Department is intro-ducing this Bill, while it is facilitating another. The Committee is aware that the provision was to be contained in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. We gave it a general welcome. However, questions that were asked in a recent debate must be answered.
362.
Mr McConnell: Do those questions revolve around the term "impose" in the Bill?
363.
The Chairperson: No. It is the more general point that councils would be given a duplicate function, which they would be duty bound to service.
364.
Mr Barr: Councils would not be duty bound to service those functions. The Local Government (Miscel-l-aneous Provisions) Bill provides an enabling power to enable councils to enter into community safety partner-ships if they so wish. They are not required to do so.
365.
The Chairperson: Yes; however, if they entered into a community safety partnership, they would have to service it.
366.
Mr Barr: The council would become a partner in the CSP. The Northern Ireland Office is providing funding to employ a co-ordinator. That may have been explained to the Committee.
367.
Mr McConnell: Those are issues for the NIO to deal with. The duplication point is not one for the Department to deal with. I mistakenly addressed Mr Poots's point about the term "impose" and missed the other point. The Department cannot decide whether the duplication of functions should be allowed to exist.
368.
When the Committee discusses the matter with SOLACE, it will say that it was pushing for a general power for councils to enter into CSPs. The Department was merely responding to that request.
369.
The Chairperson: That will be clarified when SOLACE comes before the Committee. The question was raised with that body, because it had not considered the duplication either.
370.
Ms Lewsley: Councils wanted the power to enter into CSPs because money was being set aside for it. The problem is that councils will tap into the money if they can. I agree that there will be duplication. In the end, there could be competition between the two groups, especially as regards funding.
371.
Mr McConnell: The Department is being asked to discuss matters for which it is not responsible. The function was proposed because the district councils lobbied the Secretary of State to be given a general power. The Department responded to allow the councils - [Interruption].
372.
The Chairperson: That is why I ask the Depar-tment to discuss the duplication of functions with the NIO. The Committee is not asking you to answer questions.
373.
Mr McConnell: We will raise that with the NIO. However, we would prefer if the NIO came back to the Committee. Is the Chairperson happy with that?
374.
The Chairperson: I am happy with that. You have your own sins to answer for, therefore you should not have to answer for another body's - is that what you are saying?
375.
Mr McConnell: You may say that - I could not possibly comment.
376.
Ms Lewsley: Can I have clarification? The key issue is that Mr McConnell has been lobbied to introduce legislation. He seems to be saying that he is blinkered therefore he cannot consider any other factor. He is not considering the other possible implications of the legislation. Is that not also part of his responsibility.
377.
Mr McConnell: The Department is responding to a request from councils to introduce legislation. It assumes that, before doing so, councils would be aware of the implications of their request. I agree that CSPs would give councils an opportunity to do something good for communities and to acquire funding for that purpose.
378.
As the Committee is aware, councils could engage in community safety strategies today, if they so wished, without this legislation - they could use 0.5p per pound to do so. The Department does not wish to impose a duty on councils in that regard.
379.
The Chairperson: The Committee was lobbied solely by the Department on this matter. Before the proposal came forward, the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee - I am not certain whether it was Ms Lewsley or Ms Hanna at that time - and I received a telephone call about it from the Minister. The provision should have been contained in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, but it is now being transferred for inclusion in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. In principle, the Committee did not object to the proposal, but it was not lobbied by councils to create the power.
380.
Mr McConnell: I hope that SOLACE will convey the view that it gave to the NIO at the outset. The Department is here on account of that recommendation.
381.
Mr Barr: The Department is not being blinkered in its approach; it has considered all the implications. It has been very careful not to commit district councils to any provision that might fall under section 71 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is geared towards considering what must be done under section 70.
382.
The Chairperson: The Committee forwarded further general points to the Department.
383.
Mr McConnell: Dr Power will discuss the proposed formula. First, I remind the Committee that on Wednesday 5 June, the Department is holding a briefing session for Mr Poots and other Members who wish to attend. The issue is difficult to grasp, although Members may have been briefed already.
384.
Dr Power: Does the Committee wish me to discuss the subject now? I am aware that you may have run out of time.
385.
The Chairperson: That is correct; the session has run 15 minutes beyond the time allotted. We will return to the matter at a later date.
386.
Mr McConnell: In any case, the detail of the proposed formula could be explained better in an overall briefing.
387.
The Chairperson: Thank you for attending the session. The Committee will consider carefully the points that the Department has made. Also, in the light of today's discussion, the Department will have further matters to take into account.
388.
Mr McConnell: Thank you, Chairperson. Our devel-oping relationship will be very positive as regards the passage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Pro-visions) Bill. I thank the Committee Clerk and his team.
389.
The Chairperson: We appreciate your presence and the presentation.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 6 June 2002

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

Witnesses:
Mr P McNaney ) Belfast City Council
Mr C Quigley )
Mr R Wilson ) Craigavon Borough Council
Mr T Reaney )

390.
The Chairperson: Welcome Mr McNaney and Mr Quigley from Belfast City Council, and Mr Wilson and Mr Reaney from Craigavon Borough Council. It would be helpful if both groups could make initial statements. The Committee will then ask questions.
391.
Mr McNaney: We are delighted to have the opportunity to make submissions on this matter. I have spoken to my colleague, Trevor Reaney, before the meeting and I will lead off. I will not say a great deal about the initial five clauses of the Bill because they do not affect Belfast City Council; that was set out in our letter of 20 May to the Committee. It would be more appropriate for councils that have an interest in those clauses to make their comments. Mr Reaney will speak about that aspect of the Bill.
392.
The aspects of the Bill that we wish to comment on start at clause 6: 'Powers of district councils in relation to economic development'. We welcome the extension in powers that the Bill offers local government. Some of the issues contained in the Bill are matters that Belfast City Council and many district councils have been advocating for some time. We welcome the initiative shown by the Minister and his officials in introducing the Bill. We commend it to the Committee as a welcome addition to local government powers in this area.
393.
The Committee will be aware that there has been a change of wording and this is reflected in the Bill. Previously, councils could participate in economic development activities subject to the consent of the Department - that has now been changed. The Bill states that a district council shall exercise its functions

"in accordance with such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment."

394.
I am not suggesting that such directions would be inappropriate, but we are concerned that a much more restrictive interpretation will be placed in legislation than previously existed.
395.
When this matter was presented to Belfast City Council - and it was approved last night - the council endorsed our concern that the word "direction" was too strong. We would prefer that councils come up with overall economic development plans for their districts subject to the "consent" or "approval" of the Department. However, we recognise that, with Invest Northern Ireland, it will be important to have a joined-up and integrated approach to economic development activities.
396.
We have found that there is more impact on economic development activities when it is left to local areas to be innovative. We believe that the word "direction" is a tad too strong.
397.
Currently there is no power to acquire land compulsorily for economic development purposes. There is a power to acquire, hold and develop land - and we welcome that very much. Committee minutes show that some consideration has been given on whether Schedule 6 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 would permit councils to acquire land by vesting. I have a legal background and the council's Director of Legal Services, Mr Quigley, is with me today. Our legal advice is that Schedule 6 is purely procedural. For councils to have the power to vest land for economic development purposes, a provision would need to be added to the Bill - paragraph 6(2)(c) perhaps - that would permit councils to acquire land compulsorily. That will be a matter for the Committee and the Assembly to determine.
398.
There would be occasions when it would be helpful to permit a land bank to be assembled in order to enable an area to be regenerated. For example, the purpose of Belfast's arterial route strategy is to map areas of deprivation on a geographical information system. The result of that is that the council can then concentrate economic development resources to build a critical mass to rejuvenate deprived areas. The power to compulsorily acquire land, perhaps from someone who may have personal reasons to object to the rejuvenation, would be extremely helpful to councils.
399.
Community safety is a more contentious area. Councils are considering the issue in the context of the Northern Ireland Office consultation document on com-munity safety partnerships. Councils have been concerned that they did not have the power to participate in community safety. The extent to which the Bill gives councils power to participate is welcome, though it could be more positively framed: it is framed in a negative way.
400.
Our letter suggests that it would be better if it were framed in the positive way that economic development powers are framed - that councils may promote the enhancement of community safety and may incur associated expenditure, subject to whatever restrictions are deemed appropriate.
401.
We are not saying that councils alone should develop individual community safety partnership plans. Such plans should be prepared in the context of a broad partnership because many people are involved in community safety. Our letter details how it might be achieved; by building in safeguards to allay the concerns of the Committee or the Assembly. I do not intend to repeat the points made in paragraphs 1 to 6 of our letter. However, I am happy to amplify or add detail to any of the comments made if the Committee considers that to be appropriate.
402.
Councils must have the power to participate in community safety partnerships and they need the Act in its present form, though they would prefer it to be more positively framed. However, this must be seen in the context of councils having the power to set up district policing partnerships - and Belfast City Council is setting up district policing partnerships.
403.
When one looks at the objectives set out in the Northern Ireland Policing Board's corporate strategic plan, the outcomes that Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) has to achieve through district policing partnerships are similar to those that must be achieved through community safety partnerships. There needs to be an administrative connection between the partner-ships. The secretariat of district policing partnerships will be based in district councils. At the very least, there should be a shared secretariat with community safety partner-ships to ensure constancy and integration of advice.
404.
Some councils might go further than that and say that there should be a commonality of membership. I am not advocating to the Committee that councils should not have powers to participate in community safety partnerships because as elected representatives you know that district councillors are concerned with this issue. They want to be involved and use their expertise.
405.
Mr Reaney: Craigavon Borough Council has not endorsed the comments contained in our submission in full council: our policy and resources committee has endorsed them. Hopefully, the council will endorse the comments on 10 June.
406.
Grants to district councils have been the subject of much debate and scrutiny for many years and a conclusion has not yet been reached: hopefully the Bill will bring the matter to a conclusion. A fundamental flaw in the current system is the difficulty that councils have in planning expenditure for a number of years ahead. The current formula is, in some cases, widely unpredictable. Information is only available very late in the process of preparing rate estimates and leads to very significant adjustments during the early months of the year - particularly in the run-up to striking the rates in February.
407.
Having a much more stable formula, with a three-year planning framework as currently suggested by the Department, is welcome. It will be of great assistance to councils in planning expenditure. For that reason, Craigavon Borough Council would encourage that the new general grant formula be provided for the 2003-04 financial year.
408.
The definitions of the words "reasonable" and "excessive" cause Craigavon Borough Council concern - and I believe that Committee members have also expressed concern about them. We are concerned about how those words will be defined. We would never argue against the need for some oversight of expenditure, however, there needs to be clarity about the words in the context of councils' expenditure.
409.
Our council shares the views of Belfast City Council on powers relating to economic development. We welcome the proposals, but the word "directions" is too strong; "guidance" would be more appropriate. There certainly needs to be close consultation with district councils in the preparation of any guidance or directions.
410.
We welcome the introduction of powers to enable us to participate formally in community safety. However, we are concerned that there are two tracks to the process - one through the community safety partnerships and the other through the Northern Ireland Office/Policing Board district policing partnerships. We are concerned that the end result will be a fragmented approach to community safety - with duplication, overlap, and perhaps contention along the way - arising from two essentially different partner-ships tackling 80% of the work that is common to both of them. We feel that the opportunity should be taken to clarify the position and reduce the potential for duplication and contention.
411.
In particular, the Bill refers to councils undertaking community safety activities through a partnership and the action plan prepared by that partnership. There is a need for councils to have some flexibility - to operate in addition to that provision and outside of it. Issues come to councils' attention that either require urgent action, or can be dealt with directly: there should be provision for that. Councils should be able to spend funds directly on community safety activities. As the Committee is aware, Craigavon Borough Council has carried out work such as the installation of CCTV, fencing of properties and so on, which has greatly improved safety in local estates and communities.
412.
We concur with the view expressed by Belfast City Council that there is a need to find a way of structurally integrating district policing partnerships and community safety partnerships. There are two ways in which Craigavon Borough Council envisages that being facilitated given that it appears that we cannot have a single partnership to do both jobs. One way would be through having a commonality of membership; the other would be through having a joined-up secretariat serving both groups. Both ways would reduce the potential for duplication and would assist in a more joined-up approach to the issue.
413.
I wish to comment on behalf of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), which considered the Bill on 31 May. The Committee Clerk contacted me to find out whether SOLACE had any comments. The society generally supports the views expressed by Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council. However, there are two particular points that I want to highlight.
414.
First, in respect of economic development, SOL-ACE feels that vesting powers in relation to acquiring land for development purposes are needed in the Bill to ensure that councils can fulfil that role fully. Secondly, an issue not covered in the Bill, but which might be, is emergency planning. Councils - and, in particular, chief executives of councils - have an informal role to deal with the co-ordination of a response to an emergency. There is no legislative cover for that particular situation and it should be given consideration in the Bill. There should be a permissive power - not a statutory or directive power - for councils to participate and spend money. It covers councils and their staff if they undertake activities and spend money in the immediate aftermath of an emergency.
415.
With those two comments, made on behalf of SOLACE, I conclude my remarks.
416.
The Chairperson: As regards your last point, what do you define as an emergency?
417.
Mr Reaney: It is defined extensively in the emergency planning documentation, nationally and through the central emergency planning unit. It is deemed to be a situation beyond the normal competence or capability of organisations to respond. For example, the River Bann might flood at Portadown. If it did, there would be a need to respond. The lead agencies would be the Rivers Agency, Water Service and so on. However, in the past, councils have been involved in providing sandbags and assisting with the clear up. That expenditure would normally be outside a local authority's competence.
418.
Mr A Doherty: Mr McNaney, I take it that you believe that the Bill will be ineffective if clause 6 does not give councils vesting powers. I say that because the Minister made it fairly clear when he spoke to the Committee that it was not the Department's intention to include vesting powers in the Bill.
419.
Mr McNaney: When normal negotiations fail, the ability to undertake a vesting process would considerably assist district councils in pursuing regen-eration and promotion of economic development in their districts. In the public interest, a piece of land could be assembled with other land for the purposes of economic development. I am not saying that the Bill would be ineffective; I am saying that it would be more effective if we had the provision.
420.
Mr A Doherty: It has been suggested that councils have sufficient powers under other legislation. Do you agree with that?
421.
Mr McNaney: Councils have powers to vest land in specific circumstances; a specific statutory power must be shown in relation to a statutory function. If we are being given a statutory function as regards economic development, we need a specific statutory power to vest for that. I would defer to Mr Quigley to correct me if I am wrong.
422.
Mr Quigley: The chief executive is correct on the legal position concerning the compulsory acquisition of land, otherwise known as vesting.
423.
A council's vesting power must derive from primary legislation. Throughout the range of local government enactments - from the Public Health Acts to those that regulate environmental control - there is always a specific enabling power to acquire land compulsorily where it cannot be acquired through agreement. In the context of promoting economic development - and if the Committee were to take the view that it was appropriate - a specific power to acquire land compulsorily in default of agreement would be required.
424.
The chief executive covered all the issues relating to economic development except the formation of companies: Belfast City Council mentioned that in its letter. Such a power exists across the water, but not here. In the context of promoting economic development, which is what we are talking about, had we the power to be involved safely in companies, the ability of councillors to undertake the promotion of economic development projects through companies would be guaranteed. That would give some comfort to councils, because the current position is unclear and leads to potential liability for individual councillors. We would like to avoid that.
425.
The issue requires primary enabling legislation. Schedule 6 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 deals with the procedures for vesting land; therefore, there is no need to worry about further legislation on how vesting operates.
426.
Mr A Doherty: As regard community safety, your letter states that clause 7(1)(d) should include the power to "establish and lead" community safety partnerships. Could you expand on the nature and scope of the leadership you expect from councils in such partnerships?
427.
Mr McNaney: In the context of the consultative document issued by the Northern Ireland Office, if a district council's role were examined and reviewed alongside developments taking place in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, you would find that the role of a local authority is to be a community advocate. Its role is to speak on behalf of the citizens in its district on the topics that concern them. What grounds a district council in that regard is the represen-tative nature of its members. Councillors are elected to speak on behalf of the citizens of an area, express their concerns and bring those concerns to the legitimate agencies that oversee, or can influence, items such as drugs, burglaries, vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
428.
Belfast City Council feels that that civic and community leadership role is inherent to the operation of a successful community safety partnership. It should be clarified that councils can pursue that role in leading and establishing such partnerships rather than have them hang in the ether of an undefined Northern Ireland Office document suggesting that partnerships can be properly administered by several bodies. The electoral and democratic credibility that councils can bring is essential to the effective operation of such partnerships though I fully accept that for them to operate effectively there must be a partnership.
429.
Mr Reaney: I support what Mr McNaney has said. We share the views of Belfast City Council on civic leadership, the role of local government and local governance. It is vital to get those roles right.
430.
Ms Lewsley: I have serious reservations about the duplication and the overlap of community safety partnerships and district policing partnership boards. Do you see a defined line where they differ? If you are talking about commonality of membership and joint administration, then why does there need to be two separate committees comprising the same people? Why can there not be one committee? Part of the reason for having two committees is probably due to funding, which comes to them separately.
431.
Mr Reaney: As regards commonality of member-ship, it would be fair to say that we would not see there being exact commonality. There are interests that need to be represented on community safety partnerships that would not be involved in district policing partnerships. Craigavon Borough Council will be looking towards taking the district policing board membership and adding some of the statutory agencies such as the Housing Executive and Roads Service to form the community safety partnership. We would also bring in the elected representatives and the independent community members from the district policing partnership.
432.
If you are saying to me that I should start with a blank sheet of paper and that there should be one partnership with two functions, then I think that the legislation will not enable us to achieve that. The best we can do is to achieve some commonality of membership and a joint administration that will reduce duplication. We need to ensure at the start of the process that the legislation facilitates commonality so that councils can achieve it locally if they wish to do so.
433.
Ms Lewsley: Are you suggesting taking the district policing partnership board and increasing it by including the wider community?
434.
Mr Reaney: I referred specifically to the statutory agencies because we have community representatives on the district policing partnerships through independent appointments. Particular statutory agencies not represented on the policing partnerships would need to be directly involved in community safety partnerships.
435.
Mr Poots: I am concerned about the metho-dology for establishing the general grant. It is a fairer methodology than what we currently have but I am surprised to find, as regards the tourism adjustment, that councils such as Coleraine, Down and North Down will lose out. That will be a surprise to most people and it is regrettable that representatives from Coleraine Borough Council are not here today to speak about it.
436.
Significant tourism is taking place in all those council areas. Did SOLACE raise that issue with the Department? Those councils are losing out under tourism adjustment.
437.
Mr Reaney: Individual councils have raised that issue with the Department, but, to the best of my knowledge, SOLACE has not.
438.
Mr Ford: The number of points of common interest between the councils and the Committee has been interesting. Councils may be aware that the Committee has already raised several of those points with the Department, and it is awaiting a response.
439.
Would it be acceptable to you, as council representatives, if the reference in clause 6(4), "in accordance with such directions", were replaced by "councils shall have regard to guidance issued by Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment"?
440.
Mr McNaney: As a council officer, I would welcome that. There is a need to integrate economic development activities. We have the new economic development body, Invest Northern Ireland, and we do not need duplication. However, local initiative and creativity promotes economic development. Central control can sometimes militate against that. I would welcome the amendment the Committee is considering.
441.
Mr Ford: Is that a view from Craigavon or SOLACE?
442.
Mr Reaney: This is a personal view. There is a need for joined-up governance between local and central government. If you are in a situation where you want to achieve that and have partnership working, words such as "directions" seems to be counter to that. Guidance, formulated in consultation with local author-ities, would be the appropriate way forward.
443.
The Chairperson: Mr Reaney, a written sub-mission from SOLACE would suffice instead of you coming back to the Committee to make a presentation. Thank you for coming. Several of the points you raised have also been raised by Committee members.
444.
Do councils unanimously welcome the removal of the 5p restriction?
445.
Mr Reaney: Yes. It provides local authorities, or district councils, with an opportunity to decide how much they spend. They may choose to spend more or less than 5p, but it is local discretion to meet local needs, and we all welcome that.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 6 June 2002

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 ) Belfast City Council
Mr P McNaney )

446.
The Chairperson: I welcome Dr Tracy Power, Ms Marie Finnegan and Mr David Barr from the Department of the Environment.
447.
Dr Power: Mr Poots made a point about tourist adjustment when he was speaking to Mr Reaney from Craigavon Borough Council earlier.
448.
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.
449.
If the Committee feels that that 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.
450.
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.
451.
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.
452.
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.
453.
The Chairperson: There is sense behind the argument. There is much of deprivation in provision in some of those areas. The provision must be enhanced if we want to attract people from overseas.
454.
Dr Power: It is a call either way, depending on how you want to play it.
455.
The Chairperson: It is important to get clarifi-cation.
456.
Ms Finnegan: I shall make two points on clause 6, which covers economic development. The views expres-sed 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.
457.
The Chairperson: What are you going to reflect it with?
458.
Ms Finnegan: We have not drafted the words yet.
459.
The Chairperson: One word could be replaced only for people to find the replacement word equally objectionable.
460.
Ms Finnegan: It would clearly say that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will produce guidelines in consultation with councils.
461.
The Chairperson: Will you comment on vesting?
462.
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 went to its solicitors, who were of the view that the wording does 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 that they wish to see. The Department would have no problem with that. However, it would mean inserting a new paragraph in clause 6.
463.
The Chairperson: Would that be clause 6(2)(c)?
464.
Ms Finnegan: Yes. We would consult our solicitors about where best to insert that, but it would go in as a separate item so no doubt might arise.
465.
Mr Poots: In relation to the community safety function - [Interruption].
466.
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 wants to say something.
467.
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.
468.
Ms Finnegan: That is all that I have to say.
469.
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.
470.
Mr Barr: I probably have more to say than Ms Finnegan, as community safety was raised more frequently than other issues.
471.
The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) has respon-sibility for district policing partnerships as it does community safety partnerships (CSPs); they are reserved matters that involve NIO strategy.
472.
The Chairperson: We have already written to the NIO about that.
473.
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.
474.
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.
475.
Section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides councils with an opportunity to spend money on matters that they consider are 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 com-m-u-n-ity safety in is broadest sense. The Bill is trying to enable councils to engage in community safety partner-ships. We must be mindful that that is the situation.
476.
It was asked whether councils should take leader-ship roles or whether we should make provisions in the Bill that enable them to do that. We must consider that carefully, because NIO strategy does not specifically refer to who should take 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 repre-sentation. We must be careful that we do not give councils a responsibility that they perhaps do not want.
477.
The Chairperson: The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) also raised that point. That group represents all councils, not only two.
478.
Mr Barr: I have not read what SOLACE has said on the matter, but I have heard - [Interruption].
479.
The Chairperson: It will be interesting to see SOLACE's response when arrives. Your point may be superseded if you are basing it on a false premise.
480.
Mr Barr: Perhaps. It is strange that the individual councils did not make the same representation in their individual 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.
481.
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.
482.
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.
483.
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.
484.
The Chairperson: Therefore, there should be no problem inserting the provision into the Bill.
485.
Mr Barr: We would need to be very careful about the wording. If it was 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.
486.
The Chairperson: Any delay would be caused by the Department rather than the Committee. We shall see how quickly you respond.
487.
Mr Barr: If it were a case of inserting a straight-forward 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.
488.
The Chairperson: It will be interesting to see the outcome.
489.
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.
490.
Mr Barr: Do you suggest that clarification be included in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill?
491.
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?
492.
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.
493.
The Chairperson: With the greatest respect, Mr Barr, if that is going 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 is appearing 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.
494.
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.
495.
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.
496.
Members are saying that they are not happy with what is being said; that is their prerogative and their duty in scrutinising legislation.
497.
Ms Lewsley: I tried to find out from Belfast City Council and Craigavon Borough Council repre-sentatives 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.
498.
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.
499.
The Chairperson: There is no point in asking you questions such as this if you do not have the power to answer them.
500.
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?
501.
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.
502.
Mr Barr: If we go back to square one, Mr Chairperson; the Department reacted to -
503.
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.
504.
Ms Lewsley: My question was on the general grant. Craigavon Borough Council asked for clarification on clause 4(1)(a),

"a district council has failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the discharge of its functions",

and clause 4(1)(b),

"the expenditure of a district council has been excessive having regard to its financial resources and other relevant circumstances".

505.
Ms Finnegan: The Committee raised those questions before, and we provided written answers. "Reasonable" cannot be quantified. First, we would have to consider the grant that a council actually receives. For example, there is a wide variation in the payment of grants between Strabane and Craigavon, as Craigavon sometimes does not get any, or very much, grant payments. We have to look at what is reasonable, and, as we made clear at the previous meeting, we intend to change considerably the wording of that clause. At present, we are using the exact wording that is in existing legislation, going back to the 1972 Order. We shall change it substantially so that the local government auditor will have a clearly defined role. He does have a role at present, but it is not expressed in the Bill. We shall clearly set out the local government auditor's role in reporting to the Department on whatever the inefficiency or inadequacy may be.
506.
Secondly, we shall state the Department's role, which again is a reporting role - this time to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Department will make a recommendation of what we consider to be a reasonable amount to be deducted, taking into account all the circumstances. The Assembly would approve the amount to be determined, and if it did not consider the amount the Department was recommending to be reasonable, the Department would have to accept its decision.
507.
Mr Chairperson: We must move on as we are running out of time. We have to make one decision before 1.00 pm.
508.
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.
509.
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.
510.
Undoubtedly, councils are looking to have involve-ment 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.
511.
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:

"generally assist financially and otherwise and facilitate such a partnership in the exercise of its functions."

512.
The legislative draftsman will prepare a draft for that, and the Department, in turn, will seek the Minister's approval.
513.
The Chairperson: You said, Ms Finnegan, that you had to consider some legal wording; for example, on the changing of the word "directions". Will you get those proposed changes to the Committee as soon as possible?
514.
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.
515.
The Chairperson: That would be helpful.
516.
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.
517.
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.
518.
The Chairperson: The Committee has sympathy for a person presenting something over which he has not got 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 be before the Committee shortly. Before the Committee puts its stamp of approval on something it must get clarity.
519.
Mr Barr: I welcome that.
520.
The Chairperson: Thank you.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 13 June 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr A Doherty
Mr Ford
Mr Molloy
Mr McClarty
Mr Poots

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

The Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson, Mr McClarty, Mr Molloy and Mr Poots declared an interest.

521.
The Chairperson: I welcome Mr John McConnell, Mr David Barr, Dr Tracy Power and Ms Marie Finnegan from the Department of the Environment. You have been very helpful in our meetings to date, and we appreciate that. We should like you to make an opening statement, after which we shall ask questions.
522.
Mr McConnell: We shall take you through our working draft. I apologise for its lateness; there is much for us to do before we reach this stage in consultation with the draftsman.
523.
Ms Finnegan: Clause 4(4), which we will come to later, has yet to be finalised. The Office of the Legislative Counsel and Local Government Audit Office have been consulted, but we shall have to go back to them. The Minister has not seen the draft, and will not do so until it achieves its final form. Of the Bill's 11 clauses, four - clauses 2, 4, 6 and 7 - will have to be amended. I shall deal with the first three, and Mr Barr will take clause 7.
524.
I begin with clause 2, which is concerned with subordinate legislation connected with the general grant. We have drafted a new subsection (7). The new subsection makes provision for consultation on the regulations referred to in subsection (6). The wording in 2(7)(b), "such other interested bodies or persons", will allow for consultation with any interested bodies, including the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) and other associations or bodies with employee interests. You will be familiar with similar wording used later in the Bill in clause 4. We are also suggesting an amendment to that clause, and we shall come to that in due course. In clause 2, we have removed the words "bodies representative of district councils".
525.
Mr A Doherty: The provision allows the Depart-ment to consult "such other interested bodies or persons … as the Department considers appropriate." If a body or person believes that they have an interest and wishes to be consulted, but the Department considers that inappropriate, does the Department have to defend its decision?
526.
Mr McConnell: Yes, we would have to defend our decision. Although I am speculating, I believe that any body that thought that it had a right to be consulted, and which the Department did not consult, would have recourse to the courts.
527.
Mr Ford: NIPSA has previously suggested that the clause should be phrased to include "bodies representative of council staff". Is that wording used anywhere in other legislation?
528.
Mr McConnell: I am not aware of anywhere that it is used. Indeed, part of our difficulty is in using parliamentary language that the draftsman is comfortable with. Mr Ford highlighted that point. The draftsman is comfortable with the language and believes that the terms do not exclude anyone. However, if a body that thought it should be included were excluded, it would still have recourse to the courts. As the provision is quite wide, it is hoped that such recourse would never be needed.
529.
Mr Ford: I hope that we agree that it is preferable that the Department should presume that the interested bodies included bodies representing staff and that nobody should have to go to court over it.
530.
The Chairperson: There appears to have been a very clear statement that that was the intent. Is that correct?
531.
Mr McConnell: Absolutely. We want to be as inclusive as possible.
532.
Mr Ford: If that is the draftsman's language, and that is your intent, then fair enough.
533.
Ms Finnegan: There is quite a bit of detail in clause 4, which relates to reductions in grant where there has been a failure on the part of a district council. We are proposing substantial changes. There are now seven proposed subsections, where previously there were five. Subsection 4 has not yet been finalised. Further work must be done on that.
534.
Mr McConnell: I shall amplify that. We are trying to reflect what the Committee has asked us to do. It is a matter of getting the wording right, which is not easy. Increased and closer working relationships with the Committee Clerk on such issues, as long as we can reflect the Committee's wishes, will mean that we will not have to continually bother the Committee members.
535.
Ms Finnegan: The Committee wanted us to address the roles of the local government auditor, the Department and the Assembly: specifically, the auditor's reporting role, the Department's recommending role and the Assembly's approving role.
536.
The Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) has highlighted some reservations, but has also suggested a solution. The OLC said that our suggestion might not be constitutionally proper. The OLC explained that the Assembly is a legislative body, not a judicial body or one with an administrative role. The OLC said that the proposal appears to set the Assembly in the role of adjudicating authority as to the amount to be deducted from the grant. The district council involved would then be able to have that decision reconsidered through a judicial review.
537.
The OLC has come up with a possible solution that would involve the Assembly as a legislative body. The solution involves a Statutory Rule subject to approval by the Assembly under normal procedures. The Depart-ment would lay before the Assembly a draft Order, together with a document setting out the details, which would include the local government audit report and the Department of the Environment's proposal for the amount to be deducted. The proposed redraft contains new subsections (2) and (3) to deal with that arrangement.
538.
As you have received the document for the first time this morning, you will want time to consider it.
539.
The Chairperson: We will have that checked by our legal office.
540.
Mr McConnell: That would be appreciated, rather than having toing and froing if a difficulty or problem arises. It is our intention to reflect the wishes of the Committee in the legislation.
541.
Ms Finnegan: The local government auditor's role is provided for in the proposed subsection (4), which defines "relevant report". Those words are suggested for insertion into subsection (1). Subsection (4) needs to be re-examined in relation to other legislative references to the auditor's duties. We have given one example, but there may be others, and we need to be sure that we are covering all of them.
542.
Mr Poots: Will that enhance the powers of the local government auditor?
543.
Ms Finnegan: We are saying here that the auditor may have these powers already, and we want to make reference to them.
544.
Mr Poots: You use the word "may".
545.
Ms Finnegan: The work is not finalised. There is more to do on it.
546.
Mr McConnell: That is why we have more work to do. Legally, we must consult again to see if the auditor has those powers. I am sorry for using the term "may", but that is all we can say at the present.
547.
Ms Finnegan: One other point on the proposed change is that we must consider whether we should extend subsection (3) to deal with the case where the Assembly does not agree with the amount proposed by the Department of the Environment. That is not covered in the draft, but was covered at an earlier meeting. We will consider that aspect, also.
548.
In paragraph 4(1)(b), members wanted the word "excessive" related to the circumstances of the council in question. That was raised a few times. The legislative draftsman has examined the wording and has amended it slightly. To explain, the proposed wording of the paragraph has two aspects. First, the word "excessive" is linked to "having regard to the council's financial resources". The wording relates excessive expenditure to the council's total budget resources. The draftsman is happy that the wording reflects that.
549.
We consider that the words "other circumstances relevant to the council" are still necessary in this paragraph, as that would address non-adherence to the Department's statutory directions or non-application of the code of practice on local authority accounts. Two separate matters are being addressed there. You will want to consider that further.
550.
The Chairperson: We will now consider clause 4. Have members any specific points they wish to raise? We need to get clarification on the matter. It would be interesting to see that the local government auditor fulfils his current role, before increasing it.
551.
Mr McConnell: The intention is not to do that, but to ensure that we do not cut across existing legislation.
552.
Mr Poots: I am surprised that there is so little clarity on the matter. Has the local government auditor been exercising some of these powers, or not exercising his existing powers?
553.
Ms Finnegan: This power has been in existence since the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. According to our records, it has never been applied. A deduction has never been made from a council in relation to general grant. When we were drafting the Bill we felt that the power should be retained, as there was no reason to scrap it. The Committee looked at the matter from a different angle and felt that the Assembly should have a role, so we have proposed fairly dramatic changes.
554.
Mr Ford: We have received one witness sub-mission questioning which aspect of the general grant might be reduced. There was a query about it being applied to the derating element. My reading of it is that this could still apply to the derating element.
555.
Ms Finnegan: That is correct.
556.
Mr Ford: That may, or may not, be valid. You wish to retain that option, given that some councils will only have the derating element.
557.
Ms Finnegan: All councils are entitled to the derating element.
558.
Mr Ford: Yes, but for some councils it is the only grant.
559.
Ms Finnegan: Yes. I take your point. It is intended that it should apply to all general grant.
560.
Mr Ford: Presumably the "other circumstances relevant" in paragraph 4(1)(b) might include equality and environment, for those of us who are keen on the five Es, rather than the three Es named in paragraph 4(1)(a). A council might wish to substantiate any expenditure on that basis, and could make a case to the Assembly that that was the reason why it had incurred certain expenditure.
561.
Mr McConnell: Paragraph 4(1)(b) is wide enough to cover that. It does not prohibit councils from making cases. There are soft cases and hard cases, and the soft issues must be taken into account along with the hard issues. That will be for the Assembly to determine.
562.
Mr Molloy: Over the years, some councils have not maintained small sections of road or pavement. Will that infrastructure and neglect be covered under clause 4? The Department of the Environment does not have that responsibility.
563.
Ms Finnegan: I do not think that it will. The local government auditor would not pick that up.
564.
Mr McConnell: None of these intentions would interfere with any existing powers, or lack of powers, that councils have. The primary legislation would cover that.
565.
Mr Molloy: Other circumstances relevant to the council could justify it in making a payment.
566.
Mr McConnell: The justification that councils would seek to make could only be made on the basis of something that the council had the power to do.
567.
Ms Finnegan: If the auditor detected that councils had spent money on something for which they did not have authority, then that could be looked at and applied. Every case would have to be looked at on its merits.
568.
The Chairperson: We may have to seek clarif-ication from the auditor when we have the final copy of the Bill.
569.
We will move on to the next clause.
570.
Ms Finnegan: Clause 6 relates to economic development powers. In our proposed amendment, there are three new subsections - (3), (5) and (6).
571.
Subsection (3) gives district councils vesting powers in relation to economic development activity. The wording we have used is "acquire it otherwise than by agreement". That is the standard wording for such a provision.
572.
Subsection (5) makes it clear that district councils must follow any guidance relating to economic develop-ment issued by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI). Subsection (6) is linked with sub-section (5), and makes provision for DETI to issue such guidance following consultation with district councils.
573.
Mr McConnell: To clarify that point, the wording is "shall have regard to any guidance".
574.
Ms Finnegan: DETI has seen the wording of this draft and has this morning confirmed that it is content with it.
575.
The Chairperson: What does "shall have regard" mean?
576.
Mr McConnell: It means that they should take the guidance into account and be able to demonstrate that they have done so.
577.
The Chairperson: There is no mention of the 5p in that clause.
578.
Ms Finnegan: The 5p is automatically removed by the repeals at the end of the Bill.
579.
The Chairperson: I just wanted to clarify that, and also that subsection (3) referred to vesting under the name of "the power to acquire land".
580.
Ms Finnegan: Yes.
581.
The Chairperson: Do Members have any com-ments to make on the proposed amendment of clause 6?
582.
Mr Poots: From subsections (5) and (6) it is evident that, should a council wish to go down a certain route and DETI disagrees, the council would be obliged to take the Department's advice. Is that correct?
583.
Ms Finnegan: That is correct. The council would have to adhere to the Department's guidelines.
584.
The Chairperson: If, for example, a council had entered into consultation, and felt that the Department had ignored its recommendations, could the council take the Department to court?
585.
Mr McConnell: I do not have the answer to that. We have not examined that possibility.
586.
The Chairperson: Can we find that out? If a council reaches a unanimous decision to do something about economic development, but is advised by the Department to follow its advice, surely it is entitled to some recourse if it feels that the direction of the Department is wrong for its area?
587.
Ms Finnegan: It is not much different from the present arrangements. Councils have to come to the Department of the Environment for project approval. We ask the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for its advice, so that there is no overlap with the activities of LEDU, or of the new agency, Invest Northern Ireland.
588.
The Chairperson: In planning, however, as you know, Planning Service goes to the Department of the Environment, which goes to the Department for Regional Development for advice on roads matters, for example. But the buck stops with the Department of the Environment. It can overrule the advice of the Department for Regional Development, and can give planning permission after it has taken the advice of the relevant Department. What happens in that instance? Your Department takes the advice of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
589.
Mr McConnell: It is a cumbersome matter. The Department of the Environment has no expertise in this field. We have no option but to consult with those that we regard as the experts. We have no expert knowledge to say that they are wrong. That is the situation at present. We will, however, get back to you on the point that you made.
590.
The Chairperson: Equally, it could be said that you have no expert knowledge about roads. The Department for Regional Development and Roads Service could decide that a planning application was not acceptable. In the past, the final say on planning applications has been with the Department of the Environment, which has said that, although it has taken advice, it has still granted applications.
591.
Mr McConnell: I understand what you are saying. I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing. We will certainly consider that point.
592.
Ms Finnegan: The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is clear about non-statutory guide-lines. It would not class these provisions as statutory guidelines.
593.
Mr Poots: Will this legislation provide cover for councillors? We could be talking about substantial amounts of money being involved in funding economic development. Could a council take decisions that, in hindsight, were not in the community's best interest? If that were so, the council would be squandering money. That has been the case in the past, and in cases where the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has been consulted. Will this legislation remove the responsibilities from councillors per se and take away the possibility of them being surcharged for making such decisions?
594.
Ms Finnegan: I do not think so. Economic development is a council function, and the acquisition of land or buildings is part of that. It would be for councils to decide how much to spend on that function within their overall budgets.
595.
Mr McConnell: If a council were considering economic development and took advice from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which said that the council was going about it in the wrong way; and the council proceeded in spite of the advice given, then its defence would be minimised. That would be the case in any circumstances where advice is taken and the choice is then made to ignore that advice.
596.
It has always been an issue in Planning Service as to where responsibility would lie if advice from Roads Service, for instance, were ignored, planning permission were granted, and an accident took place. It has not happened yet. However, it is a possibility.
597.
Mr Barr: I would like to begin with the broader issues about community safety partnerships that are con-cerning the Committee. I have contacted the Northern Ireland Office and relayed the message given to us last week by the Committee. I can confirm that a comp-rehensive response will be sent to the Committee as early as possible. The NIO may accept the Committee's invi-tation to give evidence if the Committee feels it necessary. I have been asked to relay that to the Committee.
598.
The Chairperson: The Committee has contacted the NIO, but its letter to us has not arrived yet. We wanted to talk to the officials eyeball-to-eyeball on this issue. However, they want to communicate by letter first, and the Committee has no problem with that. It would be helpful for the Committee to see what recognition they have taken of its concerns. Thank you for the part you have played.
599.
Mr Barr: Turning to clause 7, and leaving that issue aside, the only amendment we are suggesting is at paragraph 7(1)(d). We are suggesting the addition of the words "(whether financially or otherwise)". Those words should be inserted, because some councils have suggested that the paragraph was not explicit enough to enable them to spend money, if they wished to do so, within their community safety partnerships. We are happy to add the words, and we are happy that councils will be satisfied with that.
600.
We gave careful consideration to other matters that were discussed by councils, such as giving them the power to take the lead in community safety partnerships (CSPs), and to determine the membership of CSPs. We felt that that would be outside the remit of the Department of the Environment, particularly as the NIO strategy, which is currently being determined, will examine the membership and role of CSPs. It would be wrong for us to suggest that we give councils those powers in the context of the Bill. There is nothing to stop councils from taking the lead if that is the wish of a local CSP. One suspects that that will probably be the case, given councils' representative role for local areas.
601.
The NIO would probably like councils to take the lead role in CSPs, because of their expertise and knowledge of local areas. The NIO will be making resources available for the establishment of CSPs, and it has written to councils to explain that they will be funded if they decide to take the lead in a CSP. The Department felt that it would be inappropriate to give that specific power to councils in the Bill. We would prefer councils to go down the route of deciding themselves if they want to engage in CSPs and making their own case within those CSPs as to whether they want to take the lead role. The membership of a CSP should not be for any one member organisation to determine. That is why we feel that councils should not seek to take on that task.
602.
Another issue that has been raised by the councils is the desire to undertake community safety outside of CSPs. We have explained on other occasions that section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972 enables councils to engage in community safety in its broadest terms, because that could be considered as looking after the well-being of local people. Section 115 is financially restricted to them, but there are some powers for them to engage in community safety if they wish.
603.
When the Executive considered the initial policy paper and draft Bill, they thought that it would be wrong to give councils a wider power for community safety, at least until the community safety programme was bedded in. That is why we have included, under subsection 7(2), the power for the Department to "confer or impose on district councils" any functions aimed at enhancing community safety in their districts.
604.
That will enable the Committee and district councils to be involved in consultation, and it will enable the Assembly to decide if councils should be given a broader power to engage in community safety. Hence, we have not extended to councils the power to undertake community safety outside of CSPs.
605.
Those are the key areas that were raised by district councils. We are suggesting that there should be only one amendment proposed under this clause.
606.
The Chairperson: First, the NIO has to deal with the central part, and then everything else will fall into place. The Committee needs to hear what the NIO says before we comment. However, that in no way detracts from anything that Mr Barr has said. It is genuinely to try to see where the Committee should go on the matter, because the wording will fall into place thereafter.
607.
Mr Ford: You have made no response to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) point on emergency planning powers. Is that omission or commission?
608.
Mr McConnell: There has been no consultation on emergency planning. We attend meetings on emer-gency planning, which are chaired by a member of SOLACE, and there is non-statutory work going on on emergency planning. However, it is my view - with a great deal of evidence to support me - that there is no concerted view in councils as to whether they should take on emergency planning.
609.
As you know, SOLACE represents officers, and at the last meeting of the local government emergency management group (LGEM) that I attended, I asked each whether the chief executives had been requested to put emergency planning issues before their councils. I am waiting for a reply, because I do not think that that request has been made. Some councils favour considering emergency planning issues; others do not. The eastern group recently held a meeting at which the Department of the Environment assisted, and it was clear from that that several councillors were opposed to the idea.
610.
Ms Lewsley, Mr Poots and Mr Ford said that this is an additional cost for councils. We are not sure if SOLACE speaks on behalf of elected members, and once we are clear on that, we will take its views and move into a consultative process in which the Committee will be involved. The Minister, Dermot Nesbitt, is aware of that situation.
611.
The Chairperson: Perhaps we could write to individual councillors about that and request that chief executives put the matter before councils to get their opinions. As you know, elected members are an important part of councils.
612.
Mr McConnell: You smiled when you said that, but in fact, all elected members have a mandate, which we in the Department of the Environment do not have. I take that seriously, and that is why I raised the issue at LGEM. Perhaps the Committee will consider asking SOLACE whether it represents councils' views. However, that is a matter for the Committee.
613.
Mr Poots: Emergency planning is in the remit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; it is not a matter for the Department of the Environment. It is a function of chief executives to oversee emergency planning in their districts. Some members referred to putting something on paper to ensure that chief executives have more authority than at present to prepare for emergency planning. God forbid that something should happen, but if it did, the chief executive of the local council is the principal responsible officer.
614.
Mr McConnell: In 1979, the Development Office co-ordinated emergency services in councils, and when that service was discontinued, chief executives became responsible. However, that duty was not given to councils, and you are right: chief executives are concerned about spending money, because councils do not cover that expenditure.
615.
Section 115 of the Local Government Act 1972 covers that point. It states that councils can spend money on whatever they like. Although the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may ultimately become responsible, the Department of the Environment would have to enact that power so that councils could operate it.
616.
Mr Poots: I know.
617.
Mr McConnell: However, the Department of the Environment is willing to do that.
618.
The Chairperson: Councils want emergency planning included because it gives them that cover. That is why they have raised it under the auspices of SOLACE, rather than as councils.
619.
Mr McConnell: That is right, and Mr Barr attended a meeting in Castlereagh at which it was clear that some councillors either did not want to take it on, or wanted to consider it further. That is why consultation in this area is necessary. I have some experience in this. For example, following the Omagh bomb, the chief executive of the council was seen to be in charge. Councillors came to him and asked what was happening and said that they wanted to be seen to be doing something. It was exactly the same in Castlereagh when the forensics laboratory was blown up; the council took the lead, and there was no question of looking round to see who else was taking the lead.
620.
You may be interested to know that councils spent money for which they were not fully accountable. In both instances, money that had been spent on matters that were not the councils' responsibility was refunded to them. We are already working on a protocol to guide councils, should they spend money, in the event of an emergency, that is not properly their responsibility.
621.
The Chairperson: It is important to clarify that.
622.
Ms Finnegan: As a result of the redraft, we must make changes to the explanatory and financial mem-orandum.
623.
Mr McConnell: May I take this opportunity to thank the Committee? The Bill has improved because of the consultation and the scrutiny. I do not wish to impinge on the Committee's responsibilities, but our time-table seeks to have the Bill in place in time to apply the new formula next year. We are in your hands.
624.
The Chairperson: We shall endeavour to assist. Thank you very much.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 20 June 2002

Members present:
Rev Dr William McCrea (Chairperson)
Ms Lewsley (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr A Doherty
Mr M Murphy
Mr Poots

Witnesses:
Dr T Power )
Ms Finnegan ) Departmental Officials

625.
The Chairperson: I welcome Dr Tracy Power and Ms Marie Finnegan. We have received a copy of the further proposed amendments.
626.
Ms Finnegan: Mr John McConnell sends his apologies.
627.
If we work from the draft, I will refer to the additional amendments. There is nothing on page 1 that we need to refer to. In general we were content with the changes on page 2 in relation to clause 2(7), clause 4(1), and the beginning of 4(2). However, I do want to say something about 4(2)(a) at the bottom of the page. The Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC) asked some questions about the timing of any reduction from the general grant, and we thought it would be appropriate to make provision for the phasing of a reduction over more than one financial year, which might accommodate a district council in particular circumstances. So the wording of the proposed amendment to subsection 4(2)(a) reflects this facility for district councils to repay the amount over a number of years. The added parts are in brackets:

"(or in each of such financial years as are so specified)" and "(or is so specified in relation to that year)".

628.
That brings us to clause 4(3). The clause itself was fine, but we have proposed an additional provision, subsection 4(3)(b), to cover the eventuality of the Assembly's non-approval of the Order - where the Assembly does not agree with the amount or the timing of the reduction. It reads:

"If that draft order is not so approved, the Department may prepare and lay before the Assembly a new draft order and document complying with subsection (2); and subsection (3)(a) and this subsection apply in relation to that draft order as they apply in relation to the original draft order."

629.
I remind Members that any draft Order would come before the Environment Committee in the first instance. That is the first opportunity to challenge the Department's proposal; there would then be a further opportunity should the Assembly not approve the Order. That is what new clause 4(3)(b) is saying.
630.
The Chairperson: You know that the Committee would not be behind the door about that. If we feel strongly about it, we will certainly be willing to challenge.
631.
Ms Finnegan: Before it ever got to the Assembly, this Committee could have challenged it and we would take it back. However, if it went through the Committee and went to the Assembly, the Assembly or somebody outside this Committee could challenge it. That might put down the Order, and we would have to revisit it and go through the stages again.
632.
Clause 4(4)(a) has been re-worded in our proposed amendment:

"In subsections (1) and (2) "relevant report" means a report made by a local government auditor under section 80,88 or 89A of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (c.9)."

633.
In other words, we have expanded the original wording to include sections 80, 88 and 89A of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972; I will explain what those sections cover. Section 80 refers to the report on the annual audit of accounts of district councils. Section 88 is where the Department directs a local government auditor to carry out an extraordinary audit. Section 89A is a report on a value for money audit, and again that would have been requested by the Department.
634.
Having amended that wording, the OLC then recommended that we drop 4(4)(b). I was a bit hesitant about this last week, and was saying then that this might change the existing powers of the auditor. The OLC had provided for other types of reports that the Department might want to rely on, and that was really in anticipation of any changes that might be made to local authority auditing under the Audit and Accountability Bill. The Department of Finance and Personnel is taking that Bill forward, but, at present, the Executive Committee has not yet cleared the policy memorandum. The OLC therefore decided that, even if we are thinking of something like that, it really is too soon to put it in, so we have taken that out.
635.
The Chairperson: I want Members to declare their interest, to keep everyone correct.

[The Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, Mr M Murphy and Mr Poots declared an interest.]

636.
Ms Finnegan: That brings us then to clause 6. The changes that we had already made to clause 6 were in relation to subsections 3, 5 and 6. Last week Members appeared to be reasonably satisfied with the amendments. However, clarification may be required about the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's guid-ance. I said last week that the guidance would be non--statutory, and having checked that out, can confirm that that is the case. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment would prepare any guidance, in partnership with district councils. Therefore, district councils should be in agreement with that guidance, and be prepared to work within its parameters. Should a district council carry out some project outside of the guidance, then that would be open to challenge. That is where the local government auditor would step in. The auditors would be aware that there is guidance for district councils to follow.
637.
I have discussed this with the chief local govern-ment auditor, and he said that if he came across a case where a district council had gone outside the guidance, he would look first to section 81 of the Local Govern-ment Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which relates to sur-charge, and consider if the expenditure was unlawful. A case might also arise in which the district council is guilty of wilful misconduct by doing something that it knew it ought not to - ignoring the guidelines that are there. The bottom line is that if the guidance is there, district councils are expected to adhere to it. I hope that clarifies this amendment.
638.
The Chairperson: On clause 6, and the introduction of subsection 3 in the working draft: where, under existing legislative provision, are the powers for district councils to make compensation payments to landowners whose land has been vested under the economic development powers of this clause?
639.
Ms Finnegan: There is a section in the 1972 Act on the vesting of land, and there is also a whole schedule setting out all of the instructions and requirements. That schedule refers to a district council's ability to pay compensation, which can be by agreement, or settled by the Lands Tribunal. There is detailed legislation on vesting powers.
640.
The Chairperson: We will have to get that checked.
641.
Ms Finnegan: As well as a reference in the body of the 1972 Act, a whole schedule is devoted to vesting.
642.
The Chairperson: It would be helpful if you could let us have the copy of the relevant part. We would like that checked out, just to keep ourselves right.
643.
Mr Poots: Clause 7(2) still contains this dreadful word "impose". Other Members of the Committee have mentioned this, and I personally strongly resist the word "impose". It should be removed; I do not think there is any need for it.
644.
Ms Finnegan: I cannot really take questions on clause 7.
645.
The Chairperson: We will discuss clause 7 with the Northern Ireland Office.
646.
Ms Finnegan: I will certainly pass on your remarks to David Barr and John McConnell.
647.
The Chairperson: To be fair, they could not give us an answer on this either.
648.
Mr Poots: I am not getting into the community safety aspect - it is just the wording, which is "confer or impose" as opposed to confer.
649.
Ms Finnegan: I realise that this was raised before, and I will tell David Barr that it was raised again this morning.
650.
Mr Poots: We are strongly opposed to the word "impose".
651.
The Chairperson: David Barr said that this allowed district councils - it give them powers to do it, but it was not imposed upon them. When it comes to the actual wording in the legislation we find that it does include the word "impose", which takes away from the meaning of his presentation to us. In fact, it says the very opposite, because his interpretation was to permit district councils that wanted to, to do this. Once you put in the word "impose", it actually goes further and deeper. You leave the door open to an imposition of community safety functions, and that has been raised a number of times. The rest of the wording is acceptable.
652.
The Northern Ireland Office has sent us a copy of some responses this morning, and Members will have an opportunity to read them before next week's meeting.
653.
Clause 6(6) of the working draft refers to consultation:

"The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may, after consultation with district councils, issue guidance as to the exercise by district councils of their powers under this section."

654.
Should that consultation not also include interested bodies and persons that the Department consider appropriate? District councils are mentioned; however, other parts of the Bill mention interested bodies or persons that the Department considers appropriate.
655.
Ms Finnegan: Yes, it occurs at two other places in the Bill. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's officials gave us the impression that they would be happy to consult with other bodies, and they mentioned Invest Northern Ireland and SOLACE.
656.
The Chairperson: It allows us to leave that door open.
657.
Ms Finnegan: Yes. We could include the words, but I will confirm that with the Department.
658.
The Chairperson: Should clause 4(7) not read that regulations under subsections (4) and (5) shall be subject to negative resolution?
659.
Ms Finnegan: That issue was raised before, and we talked to the OLC about it. They stressed that the subsection did not need to go beyond the current wording, and that the only time when we would have to specify a subsection is when there is a mixture of regulations within a clause. In that case some regulations might be subject to affirmative resolution and others subject to negative resolution.
660.
The Chairperson: The Committee would like to have its own legal advice on that point.
661.
Ms Finnegan: In clause 4 we have introduced an Order that would be laid before the Assembly. That legislation, in a sense, would be subject to affirmative resolution.
662.
The Chairperson: We will study that.
663.
Ms Finnegan: The only reference to regulations in clause 4 is in subsection (5). Ultimately, the only regulations mentioned in clause 4 that are subject to negative resolution are mentioned in subsection (5), but I accept that the Committee will want to check that.
664.
The Chairperson: We appreciate your assistance and your amenable approach to suggestions from the Committee.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

27 June 2002

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 )
Mr M McGuckin ) Northern Ireland Office
Ms H Cousins )

665.
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.
666.
Ms Finnegan: I have circulated a second working draft (number two). In that, the Department has incorp-orated the agreed amendments, and they are highlighted in red. We have taken working draft number one - in which amendments were highlighted in blue - plus the sheet that was circulated last week.
667.
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.
668.
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 word "section" and asked if 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.
669.
The only mention of Regulations in clause 4 is in subsection (5)(a). Therefore, as subsection (7) is only referring 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.
670.
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?
671.
Ms Finnegan: Yes, but our people did not think that that was the way to do it.
672.
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 if there is any reason why they cannot do that.
673.
The Chairperson: We could get our legal people to speak to your legal people. The objective is clarity.
674.
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.
675.
The Chairperson: That is the only thing that is still outstanding, but we need to get the legislators to speak to each other.
676.
Mr McConnell: We are both aiming to get to the same point.
677.
The Chairperson: That is right.
678.
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.
679.
The Chairperson: We have to agree clause 7, of course.
680.
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 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.
681.
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.
682.
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.
683.
The Chairperson: There are still questions about the necessity for it, but we may not get any closer to an agreement.
684.
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.
685.
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, to make it slightly easier to accept?
686.
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.
687.
Mr Ford: I accept the point that it is implicit, but would it be beneficial to make it explicit?
688.
Mr McConnell: The draughtsman believes that the Bill is sufficient the way it is. Implicit is explicit, because it is going to happen: it cannot not happen. There is nothing that we can do to make this happen without Committee procedures, consultation, et cetera.
689.
Mr Molloy: If a district council "may" participate in the community safety scheme, then that is contradictory. It would give the Department authority to impose where the council proposes not to participate.
690.
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, then 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.
691.
The Chairperson: If the Assembly believed that, could it not move in that direction at that time, rather than have it here now?
692.
Mr McConnell: That would need primary legis-lation. We are trying to be prudent by putting it into subordinate legislation. I hope that I am wrong, but I am detecting 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.
693.
The Chairperson: The "may" and "impose" do not sit easily together.
694.
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.
695.
Mr Barr: Clause 7(2) will not override what is in clause 7(1). It is worded in such a way that the Department

"may by order confer or impose on district councils other functions relating to the enhancement of community safety".

696.
If one were to make clause 7(1) obligatory, then that would have to be done by repealing 7(1) through primary legislation. Clause 7(2) in no way overrides what is actually in clause 7(1).
697.
Mr McConnell: We have taken the concerns of the Committee to the draughtsmen. They have told us, in terms that David has just described, what has to happen before any enactment of 7(2).
698.
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.
699.
Mr McConnell: Which is proper in our democratic system.
700.
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.
701.
We will now move on to the other issue. We have officials of the NIO 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.
702.
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.
703.
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. The DPP is an accountability body for the police at a 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.
704.
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.
705.
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.
706.
I am now happy to clarify any issues relating to the paper that came before the Committee.
707.
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.
708.
We are dealing with limited public finances. Grants may have been given initially to establish these partner-ships, 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.
709.
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.
710.
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.
711.
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 that services are delivered on the ground to meet local needs.
712.
The Chairperson: I will consider what you have said.
713.
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.
714.
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.
715.
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 are 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.
716.
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.
717.
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.
718.
The co-ordinating responsibility exists to support the partnership, and all of 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.
719.
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.
720.
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.
721.
You have argued that the difference is that community safety partnerships (CSPs) consist of statutory bodies, but it is essential that they also contain represent-atives of the voluntary organisations, and if that happens then potentially there will be a greater overlap with district policing partnerships (DPPs) than you have given account to in this paper.
722.
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.
723.
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.
724.
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 under-standing is that they do not represent the voluntary or community organisations, or any other organisation.
725.
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 respons-ibility for support to both, and whether there will be significant personnel overlaps.
726.
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.
727.
Mr Ford: I did not suggest they were. You are talking about mechanisms and procedures, while I am referring to the practical reality of the kind of people who are involved in community and voluntary activities at district level.
728.
Mr McGuckin: There may, potentially, be some overlap at that level.
729.
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 -
730.
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.
731.
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.
732.
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.
733.
Mr McGuckin: The paper sets out the differences in function and structure.
734.
Mr Armstrong: I have read that, but I do not see the point.
735.
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.
736.
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 under-lying causes of crime. Many things are put at the door of the PSNI, yet they do not have the power to deal with them. They are keen to work in those partnerships.
737.
Mr Armstrong: Perhaps we should give the police more powers.
738.
The Chairperson: Let us move on to financial matters. We are constantly 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.
739.
Ratepayers are constantly being made to pay for that which is 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?
740.
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.
741.
The Minister's letter, dated 8 March 2002, says that

"The NIO would fund councils directly, with the first two years financed at 100%, and thereafter in the form of grant-in-aid at a rate of up to 75% on approved costs. Councils would be expected to fund the remainder."

742.
That means that ratepayers would foot the bill for a function not directly related to district councils. Let us be quite clear on that.
743.
After 2003-04, funding would be subject to bidding. It is understood that the Northern Ireland Office intends to require bids for a further three years at least. Of course, we do not know whether they will cover the bids at the rate of 75%. Remember that "up to" 75% of costs are to be covered, which might mean 50% or even 20%. The remainder is funded by the district councils.
744.
The Minister continues:

"It should also be noted that there is a possibility that councils could seek 'top up' funding from DOE after 2003/2004. This of course should not deflect from consideration of the merits of the proposal."

745.
We received a letter from the NIO, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that

"It would make sense to continue the funding at 100% for the third year while the evaluation is taking place."

746.
Let us return to the initial problem. This is not for two or three years; it is setting up a function to be given to district councils:

"Councils would be expected to fund the remainder."

747.
That means ratepayers. The Department of the Environment says that we could seek top-up funding. Seeking such funding is one matter, but finding it is another. Securing top-up funding from the Department of the Environment is like looking for a needle in a haystack. We all know that a great many other bids will be made to the Department of the Environment.
748.
We lack the funding to meet the bids which the Committee requests. District councils acknowledged as the poorest in the Province are to have millions taken from them next year. What are they going to top up the funding with? Those facts are important. To be quite honest, we do not need a new function unless someone is paying for it. Unfortunately, my feeling is that rate-payers will cover central government's responsibility. It is another form of taxation. That is a serious matter, and we must examine it.
749.
Make no mistake: I want more powers for district councils so that, whatever their position after reorgan-isation, they have real and meaningful authority. However, I certainly do not want added responsibilities thrown at them in a piecemeal fashion, with the ratepayers constantly footing the bill. I have no doubt that other agencies would be happy to participate, but the Minister's letter clearly shows that the district councils will pick up the bill.
750.
Mr McGuckin: Your comments are not all directed at me, but I will address as many as I can.
751.
The Chairperson: I am happy for those behind you to move forward to pick up on the other points.
752.
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.
753.
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.
754.
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.
755.
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 -
756.
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.
757.
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.
758.
The Chairperson: That is my worry.
759.
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.
760.
However, since then, the situation regarding the Depart-ment's understanding of funding has been rectified. Funding will be allocated to community safety partner-ships (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.
761.
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.
762.
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.
763.
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.
764.
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?
765.
Mr Barr: The Environment Committee consulted councils, and the responses were forwarded to us. I think that some councils voiced their concern.
766.
The Chairperson: Yes, some did.
767.
Mr Barr: Some councils were concerned that it was not explicit enough for them to spend money.
768.
The Chairperson: "Councils" is an all-embracing term.
769.
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.
770.
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.
771.
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 gets operational. The councils will have to stump up 3 pence 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.
772.
The partnership boards were introduced to deal with the 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.
773.
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.
774.
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.
775.
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.
776.
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.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 4 July 2002

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 )

777.
The Chairperson: I welcome Mr McConnell, Ms Finnegan, Dr Power and Mr Barr, departmental officials, and 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.
778.
The word "impose" has been mentioned again. Have we got anywhere on that, or is there -
779.
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 - though 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.
780.
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?
781.
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.
782.
The Chairperson: And the imposition is directly linked to the over-riding authority of the Assembly's resolution.
783.
Mr Barr: Absolutely. Any decision must be made by affirmative resolution. At the last meeting, Mr Ford felt that the legislation should say if 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.
784.
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.
785.
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.
786.
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 over-ride 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.
787.
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.
788.
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.
789.
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.
790.
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 Department may by order confer or impose on district councils other functions relating"

791.
- not the functions under clause 7(1) because they may enter those. It is other functions relating to the enhancement of community safety in the district. The two do not come unless the one is entered into voluntarily. However, the Assembly - it is not left to the Department - can make use of the word "impose", or, if it were so minded, change the legislation at any time.
792.
Mr McConnell: The consultative process will give further guidance to elected members if we reach that stage.
793.
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 suggests that

"The council also states that a strategy should not impose inflexible working arrangements and should make the best use of existing structures and should not pre-empt brokered arrangements.

794.
It does not rule out the possibility of a merged secretariat for community safety and district policing partnerships. The council says that

"Members will wish to note that paragraph 45 of the document, which includes Belfast City Council, broadly accepts the community safety strategy and sees itself playing a leading role in setting up community safety partnerships in Belfast."

795.
Seven others who want to enter have written in similar vein. Do we wish to remove that right to enter partnerships? Imposing entry would never happen without the permission of the Assembly. Would anyone like to comment on that, or have we gone as far as possible?
796.
Mr Ford: I suspect that we have gone as far as we can. There are still considerable doubts, even after hearing the interpretation by NIO officials of the apparent differences in community safety and policing partnership. The overlap of personnel in setting up arrangements which do not take account of that is sufficient to lead to complications in average-sized or smaller district councils.
797.
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.
798.
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?
799.
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.
800.
The Chairperson: They must have at least a month, because they must meet.
801.
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.
802.
Mr McConnell: We will send them out as soon as possible and to put 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.
803.
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.
804.
Thank you very much.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Thursday 19 September 2002

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

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

805.
The Chairperson: Before we start discussing the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, members, if appropriate, should declare an interest.

Various members declared an interest.

806.
The Chairperson: Members have been provided with an updated working draft version of the Bill.
807.
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.
808.
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 the Second Stage Reading of the Bill 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.
809.
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.
810.
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.
811.
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.
812.
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 of the evidence will be available to Members of the Assembly in the Committee's forthcoming report on the Bill.
813.
The results of the Committee's extensive consider-ation of the specific terms of the clauses in the Bill culminated in a letter from the Minister of the Environ-ment, 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.
814.
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.
815.
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.
816.
Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Determination of the resources element)

817.
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.
818.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
819.
Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Reductions in general grant)

820.
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.
821.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.
822.
Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Powers of district councils in relation to economic development)

823.
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.
824.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7 (Powers of district councils in relation to community safety)

825.
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.
826.
Mrs Nelis: You will have to bear with me because I have not had 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 wondered if it would be possible for a clause to be inserted to make CSPs a subsection of DPPs.
827.
The Chairperson: We had a long discussion about that. Officials were brought before us several times. Members were concerned about duplication.
828.
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.
829.
Because of our concerns, we took evidence from NIO officials. The Committee questioned those officials in depth, as those that 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?
830.
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.
831.
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.
832.
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.
833.
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.
834.
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.
835.
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?
836.
Mr Barr: It is an enabling power.
837.
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.
838.
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.
839.
The Chairperson: Members must decide whether or not they are content that clause 7 be amended as proposed in the Minister's letter.
840.
Ms Lewsley: Mr Ford was proposing that it should proceed.
841.
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.
842.
Mrs Nelis: Can a member abstain?
843.
The Chairperson: Yes, members can abstain.
844.
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.
845.
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.
846.
Mrs Nelis: I will abstain.
847.
Question put, That the Committee is content with the clause, as amended.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5; Noes 0; and Abstention 1

AYES
Michael Coyle, David Ford, Patricia Lewsley, William McCrea, Denis Watson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

848.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.
849.
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.
850.
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.
851.
The Chairperson: The Committee greatly apprec-iated 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.