Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Colette McMaster and Astrid Stuart. Please give your presentation, and then we will ask some questions.

Mrs Colette McMaster (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to provide this further briefing. Astrid is the head of the Rural Needs Bill team. The focus of our briefing today is to expand on the overview of the Bill that officials provided to the Committee at its meeting on 3 November. We aim to cover the provisions in greater detail and address the issues that you raised when you spoke on behalf of the Committee during the Second Stage debate on Tuesday 17 November.

First, I will talk about the provisions. The statutory duty under clause 1 will require public authorities to consider rural needs in their policy development and service delivery. Specifically, this duty, along with the monitoring and reporting arrangements provided for in the Bill, will require public authorities to consider, and to demonstrate clearly that they have taken account of, rural needs in developing, adopting, implementing and revising their policies, strategies and plans, and when designing and delivering public services.

The term "rural needs" is defined in clause 6 as:

A definition of rural areas has not been included in the Bill as it is likely to change over time. However, the Department intends to produce guidance that will explain how the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) urban-rural settlement classification should be applied. Clause 1 also includes provision for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) to specify through subordinate legislation other public authorities to which the provisions of the Bill will extend in the future. Any such order would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

The Committee has received the Bill's delegated powers memorandum, which sets out the rationale for DARD seeking to take the power to extend provisions in the legislation to other public authorities. In the consultation, a range of views was expressed about the particular bodies that should be included and when the new statutory duty should be placed on them. We acknowledge that, while some public authorities already apply the principles of rural proofing on a voluntary basis, others may need some time to consider how they could integrate the consideration of rural needs into their policy development and service delivery. Therefore, in drafting the Bill, we have proposed a phased approach for extending the application of the new legislation by including a power for DARD to specify other bodies at a later stage rather than including them in the Bill, which would allow for further consultation with other bodies beyond Departments and district councils.

Clause 2 will give DARD the power to provide guidance, information and advice about matters related to rural needs and ways of meeting those needs. It is envisaged that, in exercising that power, DARD will update the existing guidance on rural proofing to reflect the new statutory arrangements set out in the Bill. It is also proposed that DARD will review the existing arrangements for training provision.

Clause 2 also provides DARD with the power to undertake, commission or support research into matters relating to rural needs. This is an enabling power that gives DARD discretion to decide what research to commission or support. The evidence of need and the research required will be considered as part of the Department's evidence and innovation strategy to provide a robust evidence base in relation to rural needs. We will liaise with other bodies such as NISRA, which is taking forward the work on multiple deprivation measures, to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

Clause 3 sets out the new statutory monitoring and reporting arrangements. All public authorities that may be specified under the Bill will be required to compile information on how they have met their statutory duty to consider the needs of people in rural areas and to provide that information to DARD. DARD will have a duty to collate that information and prepare an annual report to be laid before the Assembly. The annual report will also include information on how DARD has fulfilled the other functions and duties that the Bill will introduce for it.

Clause 4 provides for a duty on DARD to make arrangements with public authorities for the purpose of securing cooperation and the exchange of information between them. Those arrangements will facilitate cooperation and the sharing of information and good practice between public authorities where that is appropriate and feasible.

The final provision that I want to cover is clause 5. It provides DARD with the power to specify by order the day or days on which the various provisions will come into operation. The reasons for DARD seeking to take this power are explained in greater detail in the delegated powers memorandum, but, essentially, we are conscious of the need to ensure that the necessary support framework, such as the revised arrangements, guidance and training, is in place and that the statutory reporting mechanism is established before the new duties on public authorities become effective.

I will turn now to the specific concerns that you highlighted, Chair, when you spoke on behalf of the Committee during the Second Stage debate. I hope that my earlier comments on the clauses have addressed some of the concerns, including on the definitions, the proposed extension to public authorities and the potential overlap for research functions, but we are happy to provide further clarification if it would be helpful.

I will talk now about evidence of the need for the Bill. First, the Committee asked whether the Bill would make any difference, given the existing Executive commitment to rural proofing in Departments. The Chair referred to there being only a perception rather than definite evidence that rural proofing in Departments was not being undertaken in a consistent way. On that point, DARD's consultation with stakeholders has been an essential part of the evidence-gathering process to inform the Bill. The key stakeholders have been consistent and compelling in their view, both prior to the development of the policy proposals for the Bill and during the formal public consultation, that there is scope to improve the current rural proofing arrangements to deliver better outcomes for rural dwellers. There is a strong view among stakeholders that, to be effective, the consideration of rural needs must be integrated into policy development and service delivery across government, and there needs to be greater transparency in how and when rural needs have been taken into account. We believe that the consistency and strength of the views expressed by stakeholders are a clear indication that the Bill, if enacted, would make a difference. In addition, we have recently commissioned the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) to undertake a research project that will, among other things, review the operation of rural proofing in Northern Ireland to identify successes, problems and issues relevant to its effectiveness.

Another issue highlighted by the Chair last Tuesday was the financial impact of the Bill. Specifically, Chair, you sought a more detailed assessment of the administrative resource that would be required to implement the provisions. As you pointed out, the explanatory and financial memorandum does not include specific details of the additional resource commitment that would be required. That is because it is difficult to be precise about what additional resources public authorities may need in order to meet the duties that would be imposed by the Bill. The resource commitment would very much depend on factors such as the number of policies that a public authority is developing or revising and the volume and format of the information that would need to be compiled and provided to DARD for the monitoring report. However, we can advise the Committee that we have looked at a number of other comparable statutory functions carried out by Departments, including equality screening under section 75 and reporting on the rural White Paper action plan, to see whether we could estimate any read-across for this Bill. We believe that the duty to consider rural needs would not have to be an additional stand-alone task for Departments and councils. Rather, it would simply be absorbed as an integral part of the existing policy development function and community planning process.

On the requirement for DARD to carry out its additional coordinating functions under the Bill, we estimate that the resource to support implementation would be modest. We are taking advice on it, but our current estimate is that, to support implementation in year 1, would involve perhaps one or two staff. Beyond year 1, we estimate that the resource to support implementation would be one member of staff. In summary, while it is not possible for DARD to be definitive about the Bill's resource implications for each Department or council, we do not believe that it would involve any significant additional commitment.

Overall, it is worth emphasising that the existing Executive commitment to rural proofing should mean that the introduction of a duty to consider rural needs should not have any material resource implication for Departments. It is more a case of ensuring that considering rural needs becomes part and parcel of how Departments develop all their policies and services. DARD will engage with district councils to ensure that, as far as possible, the duty to consider rural needs can be met within the context of community planning rather than being an additional process. In addition, DARD will work with stakeholders to implement the reporting arrangements in a way that balances the aim of increasing transparency and accountability with the need to minimise the administrative burden.

Chair, you also queried whether district councils were aware of and prepared for the introduction of a duty to consider rural needs. I can advise that all district councils were invited to respond to the public consultation on the policy proposals for the Bill. Four of the 11 new district councils and one of the former 26 councils provided responses, as did the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA). The councils and NILGA were broadly supportive of the policy proposals, with most agreeing that the introduction of a statutory duty would help to ensure that rural needs were considered and that there was a consistent approach to rural proofing. In addition, DARD officials met the local government community planning officers network, with a view to exploring further how they might integrate the duty to consider rural needs with their community planning functions and to look at ways in which DARD can best provide support for councils in fulfilling their statutory functions under the Bill. The Department of the Environment's statutory guidance on the operation of community planning, which was published last month, encourages partnerships to consider and take account of the needs of rural dwellers in the development of their community plans and highlights the proposal to introduce a statutory duty to consider rural needs. We are content that these actions by DARD have increased awareness among councils of the proposed statutory duty. We have also indicated our willingness and intention to continue to engage with councils in developing the implementation arrangements for the Bill.

A further issue that you highlighted last Tuesday was how robust the duty to consider rural needs would be, given that there is no provision in the Bill for an enforcement mechanism or for sanction in cases of non-compliance. Enforcement and sanctions were both issues raised in response to the consultation on the policy proposals, so they are matters that we have considered. Our conclusion is that it would not be appropriate for one Department to police or enforce obligations placed on another. For this reason, the proposed monitoring and reporting arrangements focus on DARD's compiling information from public authorities on how they fulfil their duty and making this information available for scrutiny by the Assembly and its Committees.

We also consider that the use of existing routes of redress, rather than the creation of a new enforcement mechanism, is appropriate to deal with complaints about non-compliance with the duty to consider rural needs. Where someone feels aggrieved that rural needs were not considered or not considered properly, they will be able to complain in the first instance to the relevant public authority under its existing internal complaints procedure. Subsequently, if they are dissatisfied with the public authority's response and consider that they have sustained an injustice as a result of the authority's actions, they can ask the ombudsman to consider the complaint. In our view, the costs of establishing a new enforcement mechanism are likely to be not only prohibitive but unjustifiable, given these existing routes of redress and the desire to minimise the cost of implementing the Bill.

Finally, I hope that the presentation has provided the Committee with a fuller understanding of the provisions and addressed the issues that the Committee will consider during its scrutiny of the Bill. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you very much, Colette. During the Second Stage debate, the Minister claimed that the duty imposed by the Bill was unlikely to involve "large amounts of resource". However, she went on to state:

Earlier this morning, our research officer also highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the costs associated with the Bill. Are you in a position to shed any light on that?

Mrs McMaster: We are looking at that. While it is difficult to be precise, we have looked at what is involved in carrying out other comparable duties and so on. First, there is the duty to consider rural needs, and we do not see that, in itself, as being an additional stand-alone function. The aim of the Bill is to embed the consideration of rural needs as part of the normal policy development process and community planning. We do not see it as being a separate additional function; it will become an integral part of that. When Departments are consulting or preparing proposals for consultation about new policies, for example, they will consider, at the outset, whether there are particular implications for rural areas. They will include rural stakeholders among their consultees, take their views on board and consider those as part of the analysis of the consultation responses and so on. It will become part of how Departments develop their policies rather than being an add-on or something on top of the policy development process. From that point of view, we see it fitting in as an integral element — part and parcel — of what Departments do in developing policies and what councils do in their community planning processes. DARD will do that also — that duty will apply to DARD as well as other Departments. We will have an additional duty of compiling a report on how the Bill is working and what Departments and councils are doing, and laying that report before the Assembly.

We have looked at what might be involved in that additional function from our point of view. As I said, it is comparable to what we are doing for the rural White Paper action plan, and we compile that report currently. Our estimate is that a relatively small amount of resource will be required. We are taking further advice on that and on what the job description would involve, but, as far as time is concerned, we will need one person to compile that information. As we develop implementation arrangements, we will seek to make it as administratively straightforward and simple as possible. In guiding Departments on the information that we will wish to compile, we will work with them to agree what format that will take. We would like to develop a standard format for reporting to keep the administration as simple as possible so that it can be compiled as straightforwardly as possible by the Department. Perhaps that gives you a flavour.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): What you are really saying is that is difficult to quantify.

Mrs McMaster: It is difficult to quantify, but we do not see it as being a major additional resource requirement for other Departments or within DARD. Astrid, do you want to add anything?

Ms Astrid Stuart (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We have existing guidance and training, so, when we are looking at providing that for the Bill, we will look at reviewing and refreshing that. We do not operate in a vacuum at the minute.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Can legislation without real enforcement really be effective? Is it not similar to guidelines? That is why some of us look at the Bill and ask whether it is really necessary to legislate.

Mrs McMaster: There is guidance for Departments and a commitment that Departments will do this. That commitment has been in place since 2002 and was enhanced in 2009 or 2010. Where we are now is that this may well be happening — stakeholders are seeing this as well — but there is no transparency or evidence that it is happening consistently across Departments. We believe that putting it on a statutory basis and reporting on it will ensure that it becomes a transparent process and is done consistently across the Departments, councils and public authorities involved. It will be open to public scrutiny.

We see that as part of the enforcement because all Departments that come under the Bill will be required to report on what they have done. That will be included in a report that will then be laid before the Assembly.

Mr Byrne: We are in new territory. From the research briefing earlier, it is hard to know where in these islands the best model is. However, in Northern Ireland, we have developed a fairly strong range of voluntary and community capacity and services over recent times. That begs the question: is there any way we can go from the known to the unknown? In other words, do we know the quantum of money that has been going into rural developments and rural services over the last number of years? That would give us a baseline to work from.

Mrs McMaster: Do you mean what already happens and setting a baseline for the —

Mr Byrne: Yes, assessing what is being provided by partnerships — voluntary and community and/or statutory — to service local needs and the quantum of money going in.

Mrs McMaster: The Department knows how much is being spent through the rural development programme, for example, so there is that evidence. There is also the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) programme and the spend in and around that.

Mr Byrne: I take it that the spend has not yet been computed.

Mrs McMaster: It is there, though. From the information available, we can say what the spend has been, what the money has been spent on and what the outputs have been from the previous rural development programme and the TRPSI programme. We recently carried out an evaluation of the previous TRPSI framework, and we are out to consultation on the future programme. Also, a range of research has been carried out into the needs of rural communities, so there is a body of research that is helping to inform our policies.

Mr Byrne: What is the quantum figure so far?

Mrs McMaster: We can provide you with the figure for what DARD has spent through its rural development programme and TRPSI.

Mr Byrne: That is a bit foggy.

Mrs McMaster: No, it is not foggy. We know how much we have spent through the rural development programme and TRPSI, so we can provide those figures if it is helpful.

We know what we have spent. If you are asking how much other Departments have spent on meeting rural needs, we do not have that figure. Through the Bill, we will seek to ensure that the extent to which other Departments, district councils and so on take into account rural needs as they develop their policies and services becomes more transparent. Currently, that information is not available across the board, but the Bill will possibly help to make the consideration of rural needs systematic when people are looking at designing their policies and services. That should provide more information and evidence in the future. In addition, any further research that the Department commissions as a Department will help to provide the evidence to inform future policy. Also, DARD has a rural statistics database, which was launched in the past year. That is available on the DARD website.

Mr Byrne: I asked that question because making sure that there is a resourcing commitment in the Bill will be crucial to a meaningful and effective outcome.

Will DARD coordinate, lead and drive this in partnership with district councils, or do the district councils have to work out what their role and function will be?

Mrs McMaster: We will have a duty, like other Departments, councils and so on, to consider rural needs, but we will have an additional duty to provide advice and guidance, to carry out research, to compile a report from others and to develop an annual report that will be laid before the Assembly. Our duty to provide guidance and advice will include, as Astrid mentioned, the guidance on rural proofing that is already available to Departments and councils. We intend, once the legislation is enacted and a statutory duty is in place, to revise and reissue that guidance. We will also look at reissuing the existing training provision and rolling that out. We will provide guidance to others, particularly in year 1 of implementation. I think that it is important to do that in order to embed the legislation effectively, which is really what we will seek to do once it comes into place. We will engage with others to see how best we can work with them. There is also a duty on DARD to put in place arrangements for collaboration and cooperation. That will be the way that we go about working: by seeking to collaborate, share best practice and cooperate with others.

Mrs Dobson: Thank you for your presentation. The Department of Education will be one of the Departments most affected by the Bill. I know from my previous role as a member of the Education Committee that we can all be rightly concerned about school closures in rural areas and the wide-ranging impact that this will have on communities. In Scotland, there is a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and authorities there are required legally to explore alternatives and look at the impact of a closure on the entire community. With that in mind, do you feel that, if we had similar provision here, it would strengthen the Bill? What meetings, if any, have you had with the Department of Education about the Bill?

Mrs McMaster: The Bill will place a duty on all Departments to consider rural needs in developing their policies and in taking decisions about and designing their services. It will apply equally to the Department responsible for Education and all other Departments.

Mrs Dobson: You would agree that the impact of the closure of rural schools will be of great concern to the community and that the Department of Education will have a big say in that. Have you met the Department of Education to discuss this?

Mrs McMaster: We have met officials from the Department of Education, and we will continue to liaise and work with all Departments as we roll out the legislation. Certainly, in terms of collaboration and cooperation, we will look to put in place arrangements to ensure that there is engagement between DARD and other Departments. Departments — Education and, equally, other Departments — will have that duty. It really means that a Department will be required to consider rural needs when considering policies or how best to use its resources, because the intention is that this will apply to all decisions about what services are provided, including how to make best use of the resources available. The process will mean that rural needs and the implications for rural communities are taken into consideration as part of that.

Mrs Dobson: When you met, Colette, was the impact of rural schools on rural communities discussed, or was it a general overview of the Bill? What specifically did the meeting entail? Was it a scant overview, or was there more detail?

Mrs McMaster: We met a number of Departments. The meeting was to explain what the provisions in the Bill would involve, the duty that the Bill would impose on Departments and what difference that would make. It was also to discuss how rural proofing was working in their Departments. There was no specific conversation about rural schools from our point of view. Those decisions will be for the Ministers in those Departments in respect of their responsibilities.

Mrs Dobson: I understand that. That leaves me —

Mrs McMaster: Our discussions were about how the Bill —

Mrs Dobson: It was more generic, then. An overview, was it?

Mrs McMaster: Rather than just generic, I suppose — [Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

It depends on what comes up in that discussion. Astrid, you had conversations as well —

Mrs Dobson: I am concerned because the Chair asked whether the Bill had enough teeth. Do you agree that the Bill should have enough teeth? I am thinking particularly about the Department of Education thinking about the consequence of its actions. The Bill has to have teeth, surely, or there is no point doing it.

Mrs McMaster: Without being specific about a Department, all Departments will, as part of their annual reporting, have to say how they went about taking account of rural needs. What they did, first of all, to identity what the rural needs were and what the implications of their policies may be. They will need to be able to demonstrate clearly what they did as a result. So, they have identified what rural needs are.

Mrs Dobson: I know all that. They need to be identified and adhered to, but will the Bill have enough teeth to make Departments think about the consequences of their actions? Do you envisage that it will have enough teeth?

Mrs McMaster: We think that this process makes that transparent, and all Departments will report what they have done.

Mrs Dobson: But there are no consequences for actions. Reporting is all well and good, but if there are no teeth, sanctions or consequences for actions, you can report for ever. Do you think that the Bill should have teeth to make Departments think about the consequences of the actions?

Mrs McMaster: Stakeholders told us that they want to see more evidence of consistent application of how this is done; they also want the process to be transparent. They want to see that Departments considered the rural implications of any policies and what they did about it. If that is what people said, then they will want to see that we believe that the reporting process will enable that to happen.

The report will be laid before the Assembly, so it will be open to scrutiny and publicly available. It will also be open to Committees and to scrutinise in Departments.

Mrs Dobson: But no real consequences or teeth from the Department, is that what you are saying?

Mrs McMaster: It will become a statutory duty. What is it that you have in mind?

Mrs Dobson: To adhere to it as well. It is idealistic what you would like to see happen, but there needs to be consequences for actions. I am thinking in particular of rural schools. Surely you need to have more teeth in the Bill. The Chair spoke about that earlier. I am not satisfied that there will be enough consequences to make Departments think of their actions. It sounds very aspirational rather than having consequences. I am not convinced that there will be consequences for actions if Departments do not adhere to it.

I think that you said that NILGA had responded to the consultation but that only four of the 11 district councils had done so. Four is not a high number. Should councils, with their new planning responsibilities, have a greater role in planning for rural communities if only four of the 11 councils responded?

Mrs McMaster: NILGA was represented on the rural stakeholder group, and it has worked with us to inform the proposals. Since the consultation, we have also engaged with the local government community officers' network — I think that is what it is. Astrid may want to add something on that.

Ms Stuart: Yes. I met the local government community planning officers' network in September; it has representation from all councils. We gave them an overview of the Bill and sought to see how we could integrate the Bill's provisions with the new community planning process. As Colette said in her opening remarks, we spoke to the DOE as well about flagging up rural proofing in the statutory guidance that was published last month. Councils are aware of the Rural Needs Bill and of the need to consider rural needs as part of the community planning process.

Mrs Dobson: Finally, we have just had a briefing on research conducted by the Assembly — I think that you were sitting in the Public Gallery — highlighting concerns about the Bill, especially, as I have just tried to tease out with you, the lack of sanctions in it. What is your view on sanctions being placed on public authorities that fail to consider rural needs?

Mrs McMaster: We have designed the Bill so that there will be transparency, and public authorities will be required to provide input to DARD. That is different from the existing rural-proofing process, where there is guidance to Departments about their commitment to rural proofing. What is different about the Bill is that they will be required to provide evidence of how they have considered rural needs.

Mrs Dobson: But with a lack of sanctions, as we have just heard from our researcher.

Mrs McMaster: That, in itself, is a pretty strong difference. Departments' input will appear in the report and will be part of the report that will be published and available to stakeholders, the rural community and the Assembly.

The other thing that we mentioned was that, if individuals have concerns, there will be an opportunity to make a complaint to the Department, to the Department in question, and so on, and go through those processes. If they feel that they have not got satisfactory redress from that, they may go to the ombudsman. That process is available to individuals.

Mrs Dobson: You do not have sanctions.

Mrs McMaster: That is what I am saying: those are the sanctions for the Bill. That was one of the things that we have considered. We do not think that there would be, in addition to that, an appropriate sanction to take place where one Department imposes —

Mrs Dobson: They are soft sanctions rather than sanctions that—

Mrs McMaster: It is designed to make it an embedded part of how rural needs are considered; to make it part and parcel of how policies are developed and how decisions are made about services. It is about embedding that and making it part of what is done and how we go about doing things.

Mrs Dobson: They need teeth. Thank you.

Mr McAleer: Thanks, Colette and Astrid. Clause 1 says that "A public authority must consider rural needs" and that "public authority" includes the Department. Is it possible — I certainly feel that it is desirable — to name public authorities or public bodies in the Bill? If you look at it from a spending point of view, a lot of public spending here is carried out through arm's-length bodies (ALBs), and they would not necessarily be covered in the Bill. You have subordinate legislation, but is it possible to look at including ALBs and, indeed, other non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in the Bill at the outset, for example, in a schedule?

Mrs McMaster: We are looking at whether that can be done. In the consultation, we asked for consultees' views about whether the Bill should extend to other public authorities and NDPBs and which bodies should be included. Some suggestions were made as to which bodies the duty should be extended to, although we have not heard from all public bodies. We have had suggestions from some but not from all, so it would be hard to be definitive about which public bodies to list. That is why we have drafted it in this way initially; it would be on a phased basis, and the list would not be definitive. We have left it broad so that there could be further consultation to see which public authorities would be included at a later date.

While we have proposed to do that by a power to introduce subordinate legislation, which will be consulted on, the question of whether it could be included in the Bill at this stage is something that we are looking into. That point was raised in the debate. We are looking at what the implications would be and whether it could be done.

Mr McAleer: If the subordinate legislation is enacted, would the ALBs be part of the scheme voluntarily or would they be specified?

Mrs McMaster: The proposal is that they would be specified in the subordinate legislation. I envisage that that will be a list of bodies through subordinate legislation. That list may change because, over time, there might be different bodies or bodies that do not exist any more, so there would be a process of keeping that list live.

Mr McAleer: The Bill makes reference to a statutory requirement to "consider" needs. The presentation earlier raised the question of whether "consider" will lead to action. Do you believe that that is strong enough? Should it be strengthened so that councils and Departments are compelled to "give regard to" and not just "consider"? As Mark pointed out earlier, "consider" may seem like a weak term that does not necessarily lead to action.

Mrs McMaster: We heard that point earlier. The duty is worded as "to consider". We see that in the context of the overall Bill. The Bill includes a requirement on Departments and councils to consider, but the whole package includes monitoring and reporting arrangements. That means that it is not just a case where you can consider and set something aside easily. If you consider, you are required to demonstrate how you took account of rural needs in the reporting process. The reporting process will require Departments and councils to demonstrate clearly what they did when they discovered what the rural needs were and what they have done about them in making decisions on their policies, strategies and services. That, taken as a whole with the reporting mechanism, will strengthen the requirement. It is something that was raised in the consultation with us.

We have considered as well the duty to mitigate. Is that something that should be in there? It was a matter of balancing making the Bill as effective as possible with the administrative burden that it would impose. As I said, "consider" combined with the monitoring and reporting mechanism gives this the strength. If you go down the road of talking about a duty to mitigate, you are talking about a higher level of enforcement and administrative requirement that would be needed to administer that. There are a number of issues with that. Imposing a duty to take mitigating measures would require Departments and councils to undertake their functions in a particular way.

The public sector faces financial constraints. It is impossible to address all the needs of all people at all times, so a duty to mitigate would be difficult when Departments and Ministers have to weigh up the best way of doing something and having to take that into account. There could also be instances where a change in policy may be indicated by rural proofing, but to do that would conflict with other legal obligations. Those are some of the issues that we considered and why we have not included a duty to mitigate, but, as I said, the proposed duty to consider, plus the requirement to report, is, we believe, a strength.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Oliver, we are getting behind time, but I want to give everybody a chance, so, please, be as quick as possible. I am being told that we are half an hour behind.

Mr McMullan: Go ahead; I will come back at another stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you very much for your presentation.