2. Ards Borough Council.

3. Ards Borough Council.

4. Armagh City and District Council.

5. Ballymena Borough Council.

6. Ballymoney Borough Council.

7. Banbridge District Council.

8. Belfast City Council.

9. Coleraine Borough Council.

10. Craigavon Borough Council.

11. Derry City Council.

12. Down District Council.

13. Fermanagh District Council.

14. Magherafelt District Council.

15. Moyle District Council.

16. Newry and Mourne District Council.

17. Omagh District Council.

20 May 2002

Thank you for your letter of 10 May 2002 seeking comments on the above draft Bill. I note that the Environment Committee has already highlighted a range of issues but, on behalf of Council, I would wish to highlight the items listed hereunder.

Clause 4(i) and (ii) give the Department sweeping powers to reduce the amount of general grant in the event of excessive expenditure or a failure to achieve a reasonable performance in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Before acting on such a power the Department should be obliged to give any Council affected:

(a) sufficient notice of, and an opportunity to rectify, any excessive expenditure or other shortcoming;

(b) an opportunity to answer any charge relating to excessive expenditure or failure to achieve the "3 E's".

Any reduction of general grant that is imposed should apply ONLY to the resources element of general grant. The Department should not have the power to impose any abatement to the derating element.

(a) This section makes no mention of the existing net expenditure cap (the equivalent of a 5p domestic rate) and indeed repeals Article 28 of the 1992 Order. Council presumes, therefore, that the intention is to remove the ceiling on local economic development expenditure.

(b) The Bill gives Councils the power to "make payments" in the furtherance of the economic development of its District. It is important that any restrictions on such payments be specified; for example, would Councils be empowered to advance grant payments or loans to a private enterprise setting up in their Borough. Is it intended that such restrictions, if any, will be identified within the DETI "directions"?

Does the Bill need to provide for Councils to incur expenditure in connection with their participation in community safety partnerships - or is the power to incur costs intended to be implied as the natural consequence of the general power to "participate", "take action" and "generally assist and facilitate"?

NEILL P CAUWOOD
Director of Corporate Services

19 July 2002

I refer to the above and our previous correspondence dated 17 May 2002.

The Council has again considered the Bill at its recent Policy & Resources Committee and has raised an additional issue.

The Reductions in General Grant (s.4(1)(a)&(b)) caused concern as there is no definition within the Bill as to what would constitute a District Council failing to achieve or maintain a "reasonable standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the discharge of its functions".

In addition there is no definition as to what is meant by the expenditure of the Council being ".excessive having regard to its financial resources.".

Clarity is sought on these issues, as the Council should have total discretion in how it utilises its resources within its legal ability.

If you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

19 July 2002

I refer to the above and your correspondence dated 10 May 2002 enclosing a copy of the Bill and associated Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

The Council would make the following points in relation to the Bill:-

1. No specific reference is made to the compulsory acquisition of land within the Bill and it is unclear whether section 97 of the Local Government Act 1972 will apply to the purchase of land for economic development. That is, whether Councils will have the power to apply for vesting orders for compulsory acquisition.

The Council considers this necessary in order to provide sufficient land for industrial development, but also in order to be able to ensure brown land is brought into use to minimise the impact of new development requirements on green field sites.

2. While the Council is very much in favour of the community safety powers, having lead the way with Antrim in drawing up a community safety strategy, it feels that to be required to have a completely separate partnership from the District Policing Partnership, which will essentially address the same type of issues, would be a duplication of effort and cost. The opportunity should be left open for coordination between these two aspects rather than having two separate organisations.

3. Under the community safety powers within Section 7 of the Bill it should be clarified whether District Councils will be authorised to spend money on this, namely to set up the partnerships and employ staff where necessary.

If you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

21 May 2002

ARMAGH CITY AND DISTRICT COUNCILS COMMENTS IN RELATION
TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Further to your letter dated 10 May regarding the above Bill, and Armagh City and District Council's comments are as follows:

The Bill introduces the new formula for calculation of resources general grant, which will become effective from 1 April 2003. The new methodology has gone through an extensive consultation process however Armagh City and District Council are concerned that no provision appears to have been made to alleviate significant variations between old and new methods of calculation which may produce a significant adverse financial impact on some Councils.

VICTOR BROWNLEES
Clerk and Chief Executive

20 May 2002

Thank yon for your letter of 10 May 2002. You have requested an interim response by today and I would like to comment as follows (Members of Council have not had an opportunity to consider this matter yet and comments are from Officials):

The Bill proposes significant amendments to Council powers in relation to Economic Development. These proposals could significantly impact on the nature and range of interventions by Local Authorities in promoting Economic Development. At present, in any Financial Year, the Council shall not exceed the product of a rate of 5p in the Pound on the rateable value of the District, on Economic Development. Clause 6 of the Bill relaxes the present restriction and this is fully support, particularly as the match funding available from Europe will reduce significantly following the close of the current transitional funding mechanisms in 2006.

In addition, the Bill also proposes to enable Council to engage in a broader range of activities and of particular relevance is the ability to acquire, hold and develop land. These new powers will allow Local Authorities to play a more significant role in promoting Economic Development in the District.

The empowerment of District Councils to engage in Community Safety compliments and enhances existing activity currently undertaken by Councils in the field of Community Services and Community Relations and should be fully supported.

3. Chief Executives of Councils have for the past year raised the issue of clarification of their role in Emergency Planning and understood that some local clarification would be made on this. Does this Bill not provide an opportunity to include this local clarification and should this not be considered at this time?

M G RANKIN
Town Clerk & Chief Executive

20 May 2002

I refer to your letter to CE's dated 10 May 2002 re above and I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to input the council's concerns in this matter.

As one of the council which would still receive the resources element of general grant, but at a reduced rate, we are unhappy with this outcome and feel that they degree of social need in rural areas like Ballymoney is not adequately reflected in the Noble indicators which replace Robson. I am aware that the example is being reworked at present and I await the outcome with interest and concern.

We have also made the point in submissions on this issue to the Department, and reiterate it to the committee, that there should be a phasing in of any reduction which would have a significant impact for ratepayers. This is of greater significance given the expectation that the regional rate element, which has been rising at above inflation figures, may have to increase even more sharply in future years.

JOHN EMPSEY
Chief Executive

17 May 2002

Thank you for your letter of 10 May 2002. I would comment as follows:-

I am enclosing, for your information, copy of letter dated 16 May 2002 from our Director of Corporate Services to the Local Government Division.

It is the view of our Council that, where any Council is adversely affected by the revised grant formulae, the revised grant should be phased in over a number of years.

I would have concerns regarding Clause 4 - Reduction in General Grant. Could this be another method of introducing some of the sanctions that they had hoped to include in the Best Value Bill?

The Council welcomes the intention to extend the powers of Councils in relation to economic development.

Clause 7 should state more specifically that a Council may "contribute financially to Community Safety".

I am disappointed to note that no provision has been made for giving statutory authority to Councils to lawfully incur expenditure for resources for emergency planning including training and adequate reimbursement for expenditure incurred in dealing with an emergency.

It should be noted that the Department of the Environment Circular No LG30/00 issued on 20 June 2000 states that District Councils have an essential role to perform in local emergency planning and response, and that Chief Executives of Councils are expected to take the lead in these important functions. The Police/Chief Executive Protocol also issued in 2000 further states that the Police Incident Officer and the Chief Executive of the Council will maintain communications and/or co-operation so as to effectively respond to an emergency situation and restore normality. This will ensure that any difficulties encountered by responding agencies/services are quickly addressed.

It is recommended that the Committee should ask the Department to include legislation for Emergency Planning to allow Councils to lawfully incur expenditure on emergency planning and dealing with emergencies.

ROBERT GILMORE
Chief Executive

16 May 2002

The Clerk to the Committee of the Environment had asked Councils view on the above Bill. Prior to responding I would like some additional information arising from the Department's second consultation paper.

In this Council's response to the second consultation paper we expressed concern that significant changes had been made to the weightings in the formula for allocation of resources grant. We pointed out that population and Nobel weightings for this Council were in error as the 1991 Census figures used did not take into account the transfer of Rathfriland Wards under the Boundary Review. We also made representations concerning the perversity of the sparsity data and the weakness of Household Data used.

In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill the Department say they have made adjustments as a result of the consultation exercise. The problem is that we have not received any contact from the Department concerning these adjustments.

It would be most helpful if the Department were to provide an updated explanatory document similar to that, which accompanied the second consultation paper demonstrating the distribution of the resources element of general grant under the amended formula. Only then will it be possible for Councils to properly assess this aspect of the proposed Bill.

P J CUMISKEY
Director of Corporate Services

20 May 2002

I refer to your letter of 10 May enclosing a copy of the above Bill, and in which you indicated that the Committee for the Environment has agreed to seek comments from local councils in relation to the specific terms of the Bill.

You will appreciate that, given the short time allowed for making a response, or interim response, I have not had the opportunity to take a specific report to Council and the following comments accordingly reflect the views the Council have made in the past regarding the matters contained in the Bill.

In relation to the first part of the Bill (Clauses 1-5) which deal with grants to district councils the Council welcomes the new methodology which has been put in place for distribution of the resources element of the general grants payable to district councils. The Council is of the view that the new formula, even though it may not benefit Belfast City Council, will be more transparent and easier to understand. However, the rationale for retaining the derating element and the resources element together under one heading is unclear. Given that the purposes of each element are quite different and distinct, consideration should be given to treating these items as separate grants.

In relation to Clause 6 of the Bill, concerning the powers of district councils in relation to economic development, I note that the new wording largely reflects suggestions previously made on behalf of Belfast City Council to Central Government and the Council is in particular pleased to note that it is now proposed that district councils may acquire, hold and develop land in accordance with its power to promote economic development.

However, the City Council has previously made the point that it would also like to see a specific power permitting district councils to participate in partnerships and joint ventures for economic development purposes, including a power of councils to protect those councillors who might otherwise take on board risk of personal liability by becoming involved in companies limited by guarantee, which are popular vehicles in the area of the promotion of economic development. I enclose for your information copy minutes of the Council's Policy and Resources Committee of 17 October 1997, when the Committee met with Lord Dubbs.

In relation to Clause 6(4) of the Bill, this appears to be a new issue which would cause the City Council some concern. This clause states that a district council shall exercise its functions in relation to the promotion of economic development in accordance with such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. The present position under Article 28 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) NI Order 1992 is that a district council may incur expenditure up to a specified limited in connection with the promotion of the economic development of its district "subject to the consent of the Department of Environment". It seems to be a much greater restriction to now state that a district council can only exercise its functions in accordance with such directions as may be issued by DETI. This is something that I would imagine the Members of the City Council would be likely to oppose and appears to be a new point which has never been raised before by way of consultation with local authorities.

In relation to Clause 7 of the Bill, I would wish to make the following comments on behalf of the Council:-

(1) If the Council are to effectively contribute to the area of community safety it is important that a Council's general responsibilities in the area are clearly spelt out. Comparing the wording of Clauses 6 and 7, the Council would therefore suggest that Clause 7 open with a new paragraph (a) as follows:- "A district council may promote the enhancement of community safety in its district and may incur expenditure in connection therewith". The following paragraph would then open with the text "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, a district council may. (etc)".

(2) The manner in which the proposed powers have been worded in paragraph 1 of this Clause appears to restrict the authority of district councils to address community safety issues to action agreed by a community safety partnership. This seems an unnecessary restriction and could impede action which a council might wish to implement on its own initiative or arising from other partnerships in which the council might participate.

(3) Paragraph 1(c) of the Clause would appear to imply that there would be some doubt about the authority of a district council to accept funding for community safety initiatives from sources other than a community safety partnership, such as the Belfast Regeneration Office or the private sector. This would create a clear anomaly.

(4) Paragraph 1(d) of the Clause should include the power to "establish and lead" in community safety partnerships.

(5) The Council would wish to be assured that the definition of "community safety partnership" in paragraph (4) includes a partnership established voluntarily, as the draft Community Safety Strategy makes it clear that the NIO does not intend putting such partnerships on a statutory footing, and that the interim arrangements will be voluntary.

(6) I note that the Committee has sought clarification in relation to Clause 7(2) concerning the words "or impose". The council would have some concern at the appropriateness of using such wording and I would suggest that these words are not necessary, or appropriate, in the context.

I note that the Committee is scheduled to consider the Bill again at its meeting of 23 May 2002. If the Committee should consider it appropriate, at a future date, to hear any direct representations from Belfast City Council in relation to the provisions of the Bill, I will of course be glad to arrange this.

PETER McNANEY
Chief Executive

21 May 2002

I refer to your letter of 10 May and would offer the following preliminary comments on the above Bill.

The formula needs to take proper account of the significant effect on Council services of a temporarily swollen population arising from the Council area being a major tourist destination.

What measure will the Department use to determine whether -

(a) a reasonable standard of economy .... has been achieved?

or

(b) how is "excessive" expenditure defined?

"Guidance" would be a better word than "directions"

The words "or impose" are indeed superfluous.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

WAVELL MOORE
Town Clerk and Chief Executive

The following comments are submitted to meet the Environment Committee's deadline of 20 May 2002 and are subject to endorsement by full Council.

General Council would urge that the new Grant Formula be implemented for the 2003/04 financial year.

Clause 4(1)(a) How will "reasonable" be defined and how will it be determined?

Clause 4(1)(b) How will "excessive" be defined and how will it be measured?

Will "reasonable" and "excessive" be determined by individual service or for Council as a whole?

General Council welcomes the extension of powers in relation to economic development and the removal of the 5p limit. This will provide Councils with more flexibility and more opportunity to make a real contribution to economic development.

Clause 6(4) It will be essential that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment consults with District Councils in the drafting of the directions which may be issued under this Clause.

General Council welcomes the introduction of powers for District Councils in relation to Community Safety.

However, Council would be concerned that the current approach to Community Safety in Northern Ireland, an issue which is in its infancy and without clear and specific guidelines, may result in fragmentation and less than effective delivery. An opportunity should be taken in the Bill to provide greater clarity and direction on some aspects of its implementation.

The following amendments may assist in addressing these concerns:

Clause 7(1)(a) This clause should provide for Councils to undertake community safety activities directly as well as through a partnership.

Clause 7(1)(b) This clause should ensure that Councils have the power to expend their own funds on community safety activities directly as well as through an action plan prepared by a partnership.

Clause 7(1)and(4) To reduce the potential for duplication and fragmentation provision should be made for District Councils to take the lead in establishing and co-ordinating community safety partnerships within their districts. Such provision should allow flexibility for Councils to use the District Policing Partnership as the core membership for the Community Safety Partnership

21 May 2002

I refer to your correspondence herein dated 10th inst. to the Chief Executive with enclosures which has been passed to me, and to our telephone conversation of yesterday.

The following is an interim response on behalf of Derry City Council (although the Council itself has not formally adopted same).

1. The Council very much appreciates the Committee's decision to copy the Bill to Councils since the Department of the Environment ("the Department") had given no prior indication to district Councils that this Local Government Bill was to be introduced and had not sought the specific views of district Councils on the content of this Bill.

The Council recognises that this legislative change is both necessary and appropriate to give effect to the new formula for general grant and takes account of the views previously expressed by this Council. The Council notes the clarification sought by the Committee but has no particular concerns.

3.1 The Bill perpetuates the limitation on Councils' economic development power to that of 'promotion'; indeed, the new additional powers envisaged in s.6 (2) of the Bill seem somehow incongruous with a limited power to 'promote' economic development and will only leave scope for challenge on the exercise of powers.

3.2 Is there any reason why district Councils should not have power to take such steps as they may from time to time consider appropriate for the economic development of their districts?

3.3 What is meant by 'promote'? Does it, for example, include assistance towards the establishment of a commercial undertaking in its district (or, indeed, outside its district)?

3.4 What is meant by the power to "make payments"? Does it, for example, include the power to make loans; provide credit; provide guarantees; invest; provide indemnities; provide property; services or other financial benefit (including the remission of any liability) for no consideration or a reduced consideration?

3.5 While Derry City Council welcomes the removal of the financial limit on expenditure on economic development purposes and the introduction of a power to acquire, hold and develop land, a continuing minimalist approach will not match Council's vision contained in its Economic Development Strategy.

3.6 The precise role envisaged for DETI in s.6 (4) of the Bill requires clarification. It potentially represents a further strand to minimalist approach and undermines any principle of subsidiarity in local economic development. A "direction" has the force of statute and is to be distinguished from "guidance", to which there is no reference in the Bill.

3.7 There remains the absence of any express statutory power for Councils to engage in any form of partnership arrangements, particularly in the form of a limited company, for this, or any other, function.

Derry City Council welcomes the recognition that district Councils in Northern Ireland have no existing power to participate in community safety partnerships.

In October 2001 Derry City Council responded in detail to an invitation from the Department to address issues surrounding the modernisation of local government legislation. A copy of that submission can be made available in due course. There is undoubtedly a need for a radical, fundamental and comprehensive overhaul of local government legislation as opposed to the piecemeal, hesitant approach traditionally adopted. Whilst the proposed changes in this Bill are to be welcomed in general terms, it, unfortunately represents a continuation of the traditional approach to local government legislation.

I trust the Committee might find these interim comments of some assistance.

DAMIEN J McMAHON LLB
City Secretary And Solicitor

21 May 2002

I have been asked by Down District Council to make an interim response to the above, as due to time constraints, I will not be able to place it before the Policy and Resources Committee until 29 May 2002.

From a preliminary point of view, Down District Council has indicated that the formula for the recalculation of General Grant disadvantages Councils such as Down, which has a large rural community. The formula does not take into consideration such items as day visitors, which are a substantial drain on the resources of the Council. I understand from the Department of the Environment that these are not available, yet we do provide these figures to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. We are in general disagreement of the calculation of sparcity in the formula. Down District Council, under the new formula, will be disadvantaged, yet according to the Equality Impact Assessment, there is a differential impact on areas under Religious Belief and Political Opinion. It seems to me, therefore, that the Equality Impact Assessment, as a conclusion, that there is a benefit to these areas, yet Down District Council which clearly falls within this minority area is being disadvantaged.

In relation to the specific items raised by the Committee, the Council would like a clearer definition of the words 'excessive'. Given the movement in England and Wales towards a prudence concept in terms of a Capital Provision, it might be worthwhile looking at this particular area of development in order to decide what is excessive.

The Council has no problem with the word 'directions' in Paragraph 6(4), as these are normal in terms of directions emanating from the Department of the Environment.

The Council does however have a problem with the words 'or impose', as it is normal for Councillors to be consulted on any new additional functions being transferred and for general agreement on the method of transfer and the fundings available. The Council would be totally opposed to the imposition of additional functions without proper transfer of resources.

I intend to put this matter in front of the Policy and Resources Committee and will respond in due course.

NORMAN STEWART
Director of Corporate Services

28 January 2003

Further to your letter of 10 May 2002 the following are my comments in relation to the above.

1. Does the legislation allow Councils to spend money on Economic Development without the prior approval of the Department of the Environment Local Government Division or of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment?

2. More information is required on the application of Paragraph 6(4). Will the directions be annual, or more regular, or specific to councils, or does this imply specific approval from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for individual projects?

3. Does the legislation allow councils to acquire, develop and/or dispose of land without consultation with either the Department of the Environment Local Government Division or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment? Further, if the disposal is at other than best possible price or indeed, transferred without any proceeds, is the Department's approval under Section 96 5(A) of the Local Government Act (NI) 1972 still required? This particular section of the Act makes the transfer of property considerably difficult when the property is not sold on the open market and it would be important that this barrier were removed in relation to Economic Development activity.

4. General Grant - Councils have not been informed of the outcome of the further adjustment made as a result of the sparsity problem referred to in Paragraph 13, page 2 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. In fact, no response has been received to the comments made by councils to the second consultation document and Fermanagh District Council had serious reservations about the sparsity adjustment proposed in the consultation document.

I trust that these comments are helpful.

RODNEY CONNOR
Chief Executive

20 May 2002

I refer to your letter of 10 May regarding the above and would reply as follows:-

1. I concur with the issue raised by the committee as outlined in your letter.

2. Article 4 Reduction in General Grant. Paragraph 4(1)(a) talks of a District Council that has failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the discharge of its functions. How is a "reasonable standard" defined? Will there be a yardstick or benchmark to measure it against? Will the Local Government Auditor have the final say?

3. (a) Paragraphs 6(2) and (3) gives the District Council full powers to make payments, acquire, hold and develop land, erect alter or extend buildings, thereon etc. This power, while welcome is in effect virtually useless to small Councils if their expenditure is still limited to 5p in the £. In terms of the value of this Council's 5p in the £, it equates to approximately £150,000. This amount of money will not allow it to buy land or buildings of any substantial size. This problem indicates that the 5p ceiling must be extended or abolished.

(b) The opportunity should also be taken to clarify whether the 5p as defined would be gross or net of the general grant. This makes a substantial difference to Council spending power e.g. in the case of Magherafelt, 5p net of the General Grant is approximately £150,000 while 5p gross of the General Grant is approximately £250,000.

(c) To make this power effective, the Council should also be given the power to vest such land or buildings as is the case with the IDB/Invest N.I.

I trust that the Committee will give full and serious consideration to the matters raised and should you require any further clarification, please don not hesitate to contact me.

J A McLAUGHLIN
Chief Executive

20 May 2002

Thank you for your letter of 10 May 2002.

Whilst there is insufficient time for the Committee's request to be considered by the elected members, I would submit the following comments:-

(a) The introduction of a more refined methodology is to be welcomed. There is however some concern regarding the proposed 'formula' and this will require detailed scrutiny when the Regulations under Clause 2 are being considered.

(b) In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum it is stated that the powers under Clause 4 subsection (1) and (2) are currently contained in Article 4(1)(a) of the Local Government &c. (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Unless this has subsequently been amended, this statement is slightly incorrect in that the Order does not include the words "economy" and "effectiveness", which have now been added to the proposed new legislation.

How is Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness to be measured and is this to be linked to the value for money exercises now proposed by the Local Government Auditor?

The enhanced new powers in relation to Economic Development and Community Safety are to be welcomed.

R G LEWIS
Clerk & Chief Executive

21 May 2002

I refer to your letter dated 10 May 2002 received by our Office on 13 May 2002 regarding the above-mentioned Bill.

The Council has considered this Bill and would refer to Clause 6 - powers of District Councils in relation to Economic Development. The Council would like to see economic development powers further strengthened to allow local authorities to engage in development partnerships in order to promote economic development and regeneration of their Districts.

I would appreciate if you could keep us informed of ongoing developments in respect of this legislation.

The Council may wish to make future representation on this issue.

THOMAS McCALL
Clerk and Chief Executive

27 May 2002

Please accept my apologies for the delay in forwarding these comments.

JOAN McCAFFREY
Chief Finance Officer