Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I formally welcome Henry McArdle, Ian Snowden and Antony McDaid to the meeting this morning. Gentlemen, you are very welcome and thank you, once again, for your help. Are there any further updates? The Minister indicated that he may want to update the Committee on some matters or give further consideration to some items.

Mr Ian Snowden (Department for Social Development): The point outstanding was the proposed amendment on the naming of projects. The Minister still wants to consider the matter further. It is a complex enough drafting issue, and there are a couple of options up for consideration. He wants to try to ensure that it achieves the intent of what was discussed while not being so broad that it becomes a bit of a nonsense. He wants to take more time to consider the issue further.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): OK, thank you. I will cut to the chase this morning on this, folks. There are two issues on clause 1, which is at the start of the Bill. The first relates to the reference to "economic regeneration", rather than to "social need". Members will be aware that there are proposals on the table that will effectively remove the term "social need" from the Bill. The Minister has come forward with a suggested amendment that he hoped would form some type of reasonable compromise to match what he, the Bill, and the Executive want to produce. That obviously includes a requirement on local government to address social need. To paraphrase Ian Snowden, he made it very clear last week that, if "social need" was not in the Bill in the appropriate manner, the Minister would not be in a position to seek the transfer of functions to local government. I think that that is a very serious implication that people need to take real cognisance of.

It is probably worthwhile this morning, if not essential, to have a few minutes' discussion about that question, because either "social need" is in the Bill and the Bill goes forward or, as I read it, "social need" is not in the Bill and it does not go forward. That is my opinion; it is how I perceive the situation. I have spoken very briefly to the Minister, and it is obviously up to him to determine what he does with the Department in the longer run of this. I think that he and his officials have made it clear that they want "social need" in the Bill. This is the Committee Stage, so it is up to the Committee to determine what it wishes. I certainly want to put on the record, from my party group, that if "social need" is not in the Bill in the appropriate manner, we will not be supporting it. I know that others will be of a similar vein.

Do we want to have a few minutes' discussion about that? There are people who are arguing that they want the term "social need" removed from the Bill to be replaced with "economic regeneration", but others are saying that that would not suffice. We need to look at that and examine it, because that is the bottom line for the discussion on clause 1. Most of the rest of the Bill is fairly OK; I do not think that there are many issues on it. There is commentary and observations that members have put forward, such as the request for the Minister to take on board monitoring. That has all been taken on board with great positivity by the Minister, but we will come to that anyway through the clause-by-clause process.

We are at what I believe to be a critical juncture in the consideration of the Bill, and we need to have that hard-nosed discussion about the requirement for "social need", against some people believing that "economic regeneration" does that. There are others in the Committee who do not believe that, so there is no need to have a big, long discussion about the efficacy of that. It is just about whether we realise the implications of the decisions that we are about to take this morning and whether we go forward with the clause by clause and whether we remove "social need". My view, and speaking exclusively for my party colleagues, is that even the Minister's amendment — I have explained this to the Minister — would not suffice for our party group, and we are only three members of the Committee.

Mrs D Kelly: I would have to join in with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Thanks, Dolores. I am just basically making the point that we are at a serious juncture in the consideration of this. We have set today aside as a special meeting to deal with the clause by clause to give ourselves a couple of days' latitude. We have the option of coming back on Thursday, if people want to reflect on that over the next two days. We still have Thursday to do the clause by clause and complete the report by next Thursday, or, indeed, we can come back next Tuesday, if we wish, and Thursday. I am just saying that we have another day or so of latitude if we want to go off and reflect. I would prefer if the Committee was not dividing unnecessarily, but I am also conscious that, if the Committee produces a report that is not going to get the support of the House, I think that we need to understand the implications of that.

Mr Wilson: Chairman, you have presented it in terms that I believe distort what is intended by the change that has been proposed. It is not a case of either expunging "social need" from the Bill or keeping it in. The whole point of the Bill was economic regeneration and the whole point of economic regeneration was and is that it deals with issues that most of us would regard as serious social issues, such as unemployment and deprivation in areas, etc. It is not the stark choice that you have presented. That is the first thing.

The second thing is that the Committee cannot make its mind up on the basis of what is tantamount to blackmail [Inaudible.]

There has to be a proper debate on the issues. We have given examples of where the restrictive nature of the Bill, as it exists, could distort the measures that might be undertaken for economic regeneration. Indeed, we have shown how they could benefit deprived areas in a far more effective way than if the Bill is taken forward in its present form. For that reason, I hope that we can look at the issue, rather than throw the toys out of the pram and say, "The Bill will not go forward unless you leave this in". I believe that we can deal effectively with both. As it stands, the Bill is distorted, and it prevents and will prevent councils doing some of the things that many of us regard as effective ways of creating economic regeneration.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): To follow up on that, the Committee will clearly take whatever time it needs to consider this. There will be no restriction on anybody's commentary. That is the first thing, and I am placing that on the record in case there are any other views out there.

Contrary to what you are saying, Sammy, I am simply drawing attention to the critical juncture, as I described it, that we are at with the Bill. The Minister and the Department have made it very clear what they need and what the intent and purpose of the Bill is. All I am saying is that, if we go the way that you and others were promoting, we need to understand the implications. That is not blackmail. It is a simple political reality that there will be a division in the Committee. That is fair enough — it is not the end of the world — but, more importantly, there will be a division in the House. I think that the Minister has made it very clear that the transfer of the functions, as intended through the Bill, will then not be able to go ahead. That is the stark choice that we are making here.

We have had the discussions on "economic regeneration" against "social need", but we can talk about it for as long as we want. All that I am saying is that a number of members of the Committee and a number of Members of the House will not want to go forward on the basis of "social need" being taken from the Bill in the way that it was initially included. That is not to say that people are not content if needs be to look at a reference to "economic regeneration" if that is what they need. Anyway, I am just making that point.

Mr Campbell: My point is more of a housekeeping issue. I agree: it is not all that helpful if we go into a prolonged and protracted debate. We know what the guidelines are on what should and should not be in. It would be deeply regrettable if we were to get down to saying, "Unless this is in, the whole thing is off the table". That is not really the way to proceed, but park that. To expedite the business before us, is it possible for us to do everything bar that to see if it could be resolved between now and Thursday?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I have spoken to Kevin. As you know, the Committee staff were up against it last week, trying to bring a report to the Committee today and, more importantly, to prepare for Thursday. They are up against it, but I think it is largely doable. Kevin, you need to speak to that.

The Committee Clerk: The remainder of the Bill does not appear to be that contentious. As you remarked, Chair, there are some issues about recommendations on monitoring and matters like that. To be perfectly frank, clause 1 is the big stumbling block to expediting the Committee Stage. The remainder of the agreement of the clause-by-clause will not take very long. The officials have already drafted a report, as far as we can. What we are waiting for is the outcome of the clause-by-clause scrutiny. We do not anticipate that it will take us long; there will be a short executive summary and recommendations. That is what we are looking to slot in after today's meeting or, if it is Thursday, after Thursday's meeting. Members should keep it in mind that next Thursday 28 May is the final date for the Committee Stage to conclude.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): We could go through it. There may be some consequentials —

Mr Campbell: That would be preferable. I do not know that we will get anywhere today by again having the rehearsed debate that we had last week and maybe having it again on Thursday.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): That is the point I am making. I am drawing attention to the fact that we have had discussions and that there is a fundamental disagreement about the meaning of one thing against another. I am simply saying that we should not torture ourselves with a debate that we know we may not change our minds about. I have a couple of other people to take on board.

The Committee Clerk: If I could just come in again, I was talking to the Bill Clerk, who is here. She indicated that there may be consequentials from the amendment to clause 1, which is the third amendment referring to the promotion of a project. To keep it clean for expediting this, it is probably preferable to start at the beginning and to work our way completely through to the end, rather than to start at clause 2, work away and maybe have to come back, depending on what the Committee eventually agrees on clause 1.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Is it fair to say, with the discussions we have had so far, that there are actually very few issues throughout the rest of the Bill? I do not anticipate that the rest would take long to complete anyway. That is all subject to what comes out of clause 1, any amendments or whatever else. Even those consequentials, and there are not that many, will just flow on. We have already agreed on monitoring and issues like that, so there is not much left that is of any contention at all. In a way, it would be preferable to do it today, but it might be cleaner, as the Bill Clerk is suggesting, to leave it and do it in one go.

Mr Brady: It just seems that Sammy is trying to get his retaliation in first.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Let us try and keep it —

Mr Brady: He is using pejorative terms like "blackmail", which I think is slightly over the top. He seems to have great difficulty with the terminology "social need". I do not have any difficulty with "economic regeneration" being included along with "social need. However, they would need to be on an equal footing, because, as far as I am concerned, they are different issues. They can be complementary, but they are two different issues. You can regenerate an area that suffers from social need; you can also have economic regeneration that improves other aspects. There is an argument, which I find difficult to grasp, about not including both. Some people seem to have particular antipathy to the terminology "social need", and nobody has fully given me the rationale for that.

Mr Allister: My original proposition was to restrict clause 1 to the term "economic regeneration". I think that the Minister has sought to meet that somewhat, and, in that spirit, I am interested to see if we can meet him on that. However, being told that it is either the Bill as originally drafted or nothing does not engender much encouragement to try to bridge the gaps. The Minister's amendment marries economic and social regeneration by putting both in the Bill. I can live with that in the spirit of reaching a consensus. Where, as I said last week, I think the Minister's amendment goes off the rails and reverts to the form, effectively, of the Bill is in the addition of subsection (2)(f), where again social need is writ large back into the Bill. My concern about that is because of the abuses that have happened in the past in the expenditure of public money under the guise of social need. I make that very clear. I think that that was something that was so wide open, it was abused. I am content to plug that gap on the consensus of economic or social regeneration but feel that adding subsection (2)(f) is a step too far, because in subsection (2)(d) you already have the facilitation of social facilities. I am content to settle on the Minister's amendment if subsection (2)(f) were excluded. That is my position. I think that this is an attempt to reach out and bridge the gap.

Mr Dickson: In many ways, neither the original proposal nor the amendment is satisfactory. The Bill says:

It also says:

In my view, those neglect the economic regeneration aspect. However, the amendment says:

My view is that the use of the word "or" is difficult there. It should be, "Powers in relation to economic and social regeneration". Likewise, it should be, "Powers of council to address economic and social regeneration". It gives a pick-and-mix application to local authorities. I think that we should be looking to deal with this in a holistic manner to allow local authorities to deal with social need and economic regeneration at the same time.

I recognise what Jim Allister says about misuse in the past. Surely that can be dealt with by plugging gaps in the rules and ensuring that those are tighter on accountability and things like that.

Mr Allister: It is the legislation that sets the framework.

Mr Dickson: It is.

Mr Allister: If the legislation embraces matters that have previously ticked the social need box, it will still be ticked.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): OK. Again, I think we are still at a fundamental crossroads.

Mr Campbell: Chairman, that was the point I was trying to make. Is it bridgeable between now and Thursday? If not, let us move on; if it is, let us park it and try to bridge it.

Mr Wilson: Stewart's point is about the words "and/or". It could be that an action is designed to deal with social factors as well as with economic factors. It is neither here nor there whether the words should be "and" or "or" or simply "economic regeneration" or "social regeneration". If Jim is suggesting that we keep "social regeneration" and "economic regeneration" in the Bill, that is fine.

Mrs D Kelly: It strikes me that there is something needed on the definition of social need, as well as of economic need. You cannot divorce the need for childcare or upgrading the skills of some people who cannot learn in a normal classroom environment from having an economic objective. Is that something that members would, at least, acknowledge, if not agree to?

Mr Wilson: Dolores, I think, when we discussed this last week, it was pointed out that those things are as much a part of economic regeneration as building a factory. That has already been accepted during the discussions.

Mr Brady: Surely if you are going to regenerate or have social regeneration, you have to start with the premise that there is social need in the first place. How can you divorce the two? The whole point is to improve and regenerate, but you have to have a starting point. As far as I am concerned, the starting point generally is that there is social need in a particular area or district, and that is why it is being regenerated and why there is economic regeneration. They are interlinked issues. You have to start with the basic premise that there is social need, and that is why you want social regeneration.

Mr Wilson: Yes, Mickey, but that is the whole problem with it. As we discussed on other occasions, there may well be a case for doing economic regeneration that addresses social need, but there may not be social need in the area where you are doing the economic regeneration. I have given the example of Carrick town centre. If you were looking at the real areas of social need, you would go to Glenfield and Castlemara, etc, but they are not necessarily the best places to spend the resources. The best place to spend the resources may well be in the centre, because you are more likely to create jobs there or to be able to locate training facilities there, for instance, which Dolores mentioned. Under your reasoning, however, you would not actually spend the money there. You would go to the locations where the social need exists.

Mr Brady: With respect, that is not necessarily true, because it depends on how you spend it. It depends on what you are doing with the money to regenerate that area. To follow Sammy's logic, I am not sure that regenerating a town centre will automatically have some impact on an estate that has particular problems. The two can work in tandem, but I am not sure that a public realm scheme in the centre of any town is going to necessarily have a great impact on social need in an estate, which, probably, needs some type of community scheme or whatever to regenerate it and to bring it out of that social need. They are two different issues, but they can be linked, and they can be mutually beneficial. That is the point I am trying to make. You cannot divorce one from the other.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): My understanding is that there is no preclusion or prohibition of councils doing work on economic regeneration. The key point here is that this is a Bill about addressing social need, which will include projects of economic regeneration. That is the difference that is at the heart of the discussion. Some people are saying that we should take out the "social need" requirement and replace it with the broader "economic regeneration". That is all very well, and people have the right intentions. There is no prohibition of councils working around economic regeneration, but if you remove "social need" from the way in which it is written in, it takes away the need by local councils to address social need. As the Minister explained — it is not me being arbitrary here — he could not transfer the powers on that basis. That is the hard edifice that we have to come up against.

I could put forward an amendment that would include the words "economic regeneration" alongside "social need". I will bring Stewart in now, but I have to say that, in the last 10 minutes, another two or three potential amendments have been proffered. Gregory made the point that we may or may not bridge the gap, but I am moving towards the idea that it might be useful if people were to prepare those amendments and write them up for Thursday morning. At least we would have a set of amendments in front of us. We are teasing them out, which is helpful, but the issue is whether we can get an accommodation by doing that. Realistically, I think we need to reflect on it.

Mr Dickson: In a sense, Chair, we are trying to create an area of flexibility for local authorities in dealing with the issues. Take the points that Sammy and Dolores made. The reality is that, if you regenerate or deliver a new employer who provides jobs, the choice may not be about whether you provide childcare in Glenfield estate to allow parents to work in a factory somewhere else; it may be that you actually provide the employer with the resource to deliver the childcare. You do what is best. Are we not about trying to say to local authorities, "This is to give you the flexibility to deliver the childcare at a particular point in a community", or do you deliver that smarter by delivering it through the place where the opportunity lies? That might be a new business, a new factory, a call centre or whatever it happens to be. Perhaps the objective should be to deliver flexibility for social need and economic regeneration.

Mr Beggs: I would certainly be of the view that there needs to be an ability to not only assist economic regeneration with particular projects but to address social need. I look very much towards communities where there is a very good community infrastructure. It would not be direct support if you supported that community to establish itself and, having done that, to provide additional courses and facilities for the community to better itself. If we were to go with "directly contributes to economic regeneration", you may be too far up the line. In some communities, you do not even have the basic building blocks to enable that to happen. So, I think that, as Stewart said, we need to keep the flexibility.

Mr F McCann: During the debate a few weeks ago, I think that I said that economic regeneration outside an area — nobody is arguing against that — will obviously have an impact on an area that may be beside it. When you look at what you are trying to do with social need, which is the social transformation and social regeneration of many local communities that do not have anything in them, you see that both go hand in hand. You can have all the factories or businesses that you want, but if a community is on its knees and lacks the social infrastructure, that will have a big impact. Social regeneration is important.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): As I said, we have about five or six potential amendments on the go at the moment. People have been teasing some of them out, and that has been very helpful. I suggest that people go away and write their amendments up by 5.00 pm tomorrow and give them to Kevin so that we will have them in front of us when we come back on Thursday morning.

The key thing, and the main discussion, is on clause 1. If people are agreeable to this, we can adjourn the meeting until Thursday morning and they can go away and try their best to do that. People might come up with another amendment on Thursday morning as we are speaking, but, they are already teasing out amendments in their mind, and, as far as possible, it would useful and helpful if we could get those by 5.00 pm tomorrow so that we can share them, reflect on them and very quickly go with them or discount them.

Mr Allister: Two things. First, I indicated last Thursday that it is not possible for me to be here on Thursday; so be it. Secondly, I am just wondering about the usefulness of that exercise, given that you, Mr Chairman, said at the start of the meeting that, if there is a departure from the Bill as drafted, it is not going anywhere. I wonder about the basis of seeking to draft amendments if that is the attitude that is already struck.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I am only one member of the Committee, and I am speaking in that context for my party colleagues. There are three of us on the Committee, so we have only three votes when we come to any decisions.

Ian Snowden is here, and he can confirm or otherwise, but the Minister certainly seemed to indicate through officials last week that the powers would not be able to be transferred. I am just trying to reflect that. That is not, as Sammy suggested, any kind of a threat or blackmail. I am just giving the political reality of it. When it comes to votes, as a party, we have only three votes in the room, and that will be as it is. All that I am saying is that we have a number of amendments on the go, and if people are agreeable —

Mr Wilson: The meeting was called this morning because Jim and, to a lesser extent, me, both of whom have an interest in the Bill, indicated that there might be a difficulty with Thursday. The purpose of the meeting today was to at least give everybody who wanted to participate in the discussion an opportunity to go through the Bill clause by clause. The second thing is that, given where we are, we are going to come back with the same discussions on Thursday as we are having today. To me, the amendments that are on the table at present are ones that we could deal with today. It appears that there is only one amendment now anyhow, because there has been some agreement that we will have economic and/or social regeneration in the Bill, whichever the wording happens to be —

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Sorry, Sammy; there has not been agreement on that. There is no agreement on anything.

Mr Wilson: OK, right. It certainly appeared like that during the discussion. Stewart indicated that, Jim indicated that, Dolores wants to have some reference to social regeneration and so do we. There is probably room for making an amendment today, rather than coming back on Thursday to rehearse this all again when, certainly, Jim, who, to be fair, has had an interest in the Bill so it would be unfair to exclude him, and I, who have had an interest in the Bill, will have difficulty being there. Anyway, the purpose of this meeting was to thrash this out. There is an amendment that could be discussed now and voted on to let us get it out of the road.

Mr Allister: I would also make the point that I would like to be here to move my second amendment, which is the one about the naming of places.

Mr Wilson: I do not see any reason why we cannot deal with it now. That is all that I am saying.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): How do members feel? I will take a quick reflection from members about dealing with it now or getting everybody who has amendments to table them by 5.00 pm tomorrow afternoon and give them to Kevin so that we can all look at them overnight and come back on Thursday morning.

Mr Douglas: First of all, I apologise for not being here. I was in the House for the justice statement. Have you any idea how long this will last? The four of us have a meeting at 12.30 pm.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Today's meeting?

Mr Douglas: We have to be elsewhere.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): It depends on how many amendments there are, if we decide to have amendments. If we decide to reflect on it overnight and come back on Thursday, it would be about five minutes. Do people want to reflect and come back on Thursday morning?

Mr Campbell: Is a meeting doable tomorrow afternoon? I know that we do not normally meet then, but that would allow for any proposed amendments to be in by 5.00 pm today. I do not know whether it is doable, as I know that Wednesdays are quite busy Committee days.

Mr Beggs: There is the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr Campbell: Is that in the afternoon?

Mr Beggs: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Is lunchtime tomorrow doable for anybody?

Mrs D Kelly: I will not be available.

Mr Allister: It is not doable for me tomorrow.

Mrs D Kelly: Is lunchtime today out of the question?

Some Members: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I am asking people to table the amendments so that we can have them printed for everybody and then have a period of reflection.

Mr Beggs: What about later today after Assembly business, if that facilitates everybody?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): What time is the Assembly on to? Is it 4.00 pm or 4.30 pm?

Mr Allister: After Question Time maybe?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I think that it is either Thursday morning or —

Mr Campbell: Is Thursday the backstop? We cannot go beyond that.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): We can do Thursday, and then we can do Tuesday and next Thursday. If you do Thursday and agree whatever you are going to agree, you can come back next Thursday and sign off the report. You could come back on the Tuesday as well.

Mr Dickson: Could we do Thursday and Tuesday?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Yes. That allows for everybody — Jim as well — to come back, even though he is not here on Thursday.

Mr Allister: What are we not going to do on Thursday that we would do on Tuesday?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): We are just building in Tuesday so that, if there are any other issues that you want to thrash out or you want to have a second bash at, they can be done then. For example, if you are not able to be here on Thursday and you do not like the outcome of Thursday's discussions, you will have Tuesday morning to have another look at it.

Mr Allister: So, my amendment about projects would not be taken until Tuesday, is that what you are saying?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): Potentially, or you could have it tabled before.

Mr Campbell: It will be moved, but I am happy to let Jim move it on Tuesday.

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I understand that it will be put, whether that is Thursday or Tuesday.

Mr Allister: It does not have to be put by me.

The Clerk Of Bills: No.

Mr Campbell: It can be.

Mr Allister: Is the end of business today not suitable?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): I think that Sammy, Paula and Gregory indicated that they could not be here. Can we go with Thursday on the clear understanding that we have a meeting on Tuesday morning and the following Thursday?

The Chairperson (Mr Maskey): OK, members. Thank you.