Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Kate Clifford and Aidan Campbell from the Rural Community Network (RCN), and Teresa Canavan from the Rural Development Council (RDC). I am sorry for rushing, but we are under pressure today, and there was a Division in the middle of the previous evidence session. Please give us a short presentation, after which we will ask questions. Thank you very much.

Ms Kate Clifford (Rural Community Network): I will kick off. The Rural Community Network and the Rural Development Council welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee as part of the Committee's scrutiny of the Rural Needs Bill. I also want to say that we consulted the Northern Ireland Rural Women's Network (NIRWN), which forms part of our response. I want that to be noted, please.

You may have seen our written submission in your packs, but I will make some introductory comments. I will then hand over to my colleague Aidan, who is the policy officer with the RCN, to take you through the specific changes that we are proposing to the Bill. Teresa Canavan, who is the chief executive of the Rural Development Council, will make some closing comments, and then we will open it up to questions.

The RCN and the RDC support the introduction of the Bill, as we have been calling for rural proofing to be put on a statutory footing for several years now. Whilst rural proofing has been a Northern Ireland Executive commitment since 2002, its implementation has been patchy and its impact limited. As part of our policy work, the RCN responded to many policy consultations by public authorities, and, in the vast majority of those, we see very little evidence of rural proofing. In fact, eight of the last nine recent consultations had no evidence of rural proofing. We believe that the Bill should be strengthened and made as robust as possible to ensure better outcomes for rural citizens across Northern Ireland. This is important legislation, and the RCN and the RDC are of the view that it should be made as robust as possible. We accept that politics is the art of the possible, and, to secure the Bill's passage into law, cross-party agreement is a prerequisite. If the Rural Needs Bill is to have true worth, its impact needs to be felt by rural citizens across Northern Ireland. The Committee's call for evidence asked for responses to focus specifically on the wording of the Bill and suggestions for changes and additions to aid the Committee's scrutiny, and that is how we have framed this response.

Our remarks on the content of the Bill must be predicated by the caveat that we are laypeople, and our reading of the Bill, and the language in it, is our interpretation as laypeople and not legal people. I will hand over to Aidan to take you through those suggested changes in detail.

Mr Aidan Campbell (Rural Community Network): Thanks, Kate. At the outset, I want to say that it is good that a lot of the changes that the Local Rural Support Networks (LRSNs) are proposing concur with the ones that we are proposing, and I will take you through them briefly.

In clause 1(1), we believe that we should delete the word "consider" and insert the words "have due to regard to". It is about strengthening that duty. Like the LRSNs, we have a concern that, if that duty is not strong enough and is not worded strongly enough, public authorities may not take any real notice to make any substantial adjustment to the delivery of policy and programmes in rural areas. The words "have due regard to" may require public authorities to take the issues associated with rural needs more seriously. If the insertion of "have due regard to" cannot be agreed, we suggest that, as a further alternative, "and carry out and give effect to a rural impact assessment" be inserted in brackets after the clause heading, "Duty of public authorities to consider rural needs".

In clause 1(1)(a), the Committee should consider inserting the word "monitoring" after "implementing" and the word "budgets" after "strategies", so that the clause reads:

We believe that public authorities should be required to consider rural needs when monitoring policies, strategies and plans, and, if it is to be effective, the duty needs to include a reference to budgets.

After clause 1(1)(b), we believe that a further clause should be inserted that reads:

In the evidence this morning, the issue of mitigation came up several times. Like some members, we are concerned that the Bill does not refer to the need to mitigate adverse impact. We recognise the budgetary constraints under which all public authorities are operating. We believe that, without reference to the need to mitigate adverse impact, there is a risk that consideration of rural needs will not lead to any significant change for rural citizens. The inclusion of the phrase "reasonable steps" aims to balance the need to mitigate adverse impact with the reality of limited public expenditure.

After clause 1(1)(b), to ensure that there is adequate and significant consultation, we believe that a further clause should be inserted:

In clause 1(2)(c), we believe that a specific reference should be included to arm's-length bodies as public authorities. We believe that it is important that arm's-length bodies, which carry out significant functions on behalf of government, should be specified in the Bill. However, our view is that, as long as they are mentioned in the clause, specifying them can be a matter for subordinate legislation or further legislation, so that there is a power there to deal with that.

At clause 2, we believe that the word "may" should be deleted and the word "will" inserted. The amended clause would then read:

We believe that that would strengthen the clause.

At clause 2(a), we believe that the word "training" should be inserted after the word "advice", because we think that the Bill should make explicit the need for training provision for those officials from public authorities who are charged with carrying out the duty.

At clause 3(2), we believe that an additional clause should be inserted stating that the Minister must make an annual statement of his or her assessment of the impact of the Rural Needs Bill to the Assembly. We believe that that additional step should be inserted, as our understanding is that the current clause, which states that a copy of the annual report be laid before the Assembly, means that any report compiled on rural proofing will be lodged in the Assembly Library. We believe that requiring a ministerial statement to the Assembly will add an extra layer of accountability and transparency to the rural-proofing process.

In clause 6, we are concerned about the definition of rural needs, which currently reads:

We are concerned about whether that is sufficiently clear to enable public authorities to discharge their duty. While we have not come up with an alternative wording, we believe that there needs to be a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes the social and economic needs of rural dwellers across government.

I will hand over to Teresa, who will make our concluding remarks.

Ms Teresa Canavan (Rural Development Council): In closing, I will reiterate a few key points in order to leave the Committee with our clear and joint position on the Rural Needs Bill. To echo Kate's comments at the outset, we welcome the opportunity to give evidence. Both the RDC and the RCN are keen for the Bill to progress. We believe that the Bill can only strengthen the rural dimension in policymaking and deliver better and improved outcomes for rural dwellers. We believe that it is right to legislate.

Aidan highlighted our comments on the content and wording of the Bill, but I would caveat that by saying that we are not legal experts. However, our main and key desire is to ensure that the Rural Needs Bill is passed so that it will put rural proofing on a statutory footing. We are well aware that the Bill will not be the panacea for all problems that rural citizens face, but we feel that it should lead to a more robust approach by duty holders to consider the impact of changes in rural areas, based on evidence, and making reasonable adjustments to those decisions when they are shown to have an adverse impact.

We recognise the work of the Department and, indeed, the Committee in getting the Bill to this stage. We hope that, through the remaining stages, we can work together to produce legislation that will have a concrete impact for rural citizens. Making it a statutory obligation will serve to ensure consistency and transparency. It removes any doubts about its being optional. It should not be complicated or add significant burden.

We particularly welcome the clauses relating to cooperation with other bodies and the ability of the Department — in this case, DARD — to undertake, commission or support research. We believe that there is more to be gained by a robust evidence base and by bringing Departments around the table to discuss the interdependence of their policies and agree actions to join these up better. We would extend this to ensure good engagement with rural stakeholders and believe that, through such engagement, solutions to rural delivery and access to services can be found, and they will be cost-effective ones at that.

We have followed the progression of the Bill to this stage through Hansard. We welcome the fact that members appear to share our clear desire for a robust Rural Needs Bill that leads to better outcomes for rural citizens. We are interested in the guidelines, the supporting mechanisms and the framework that will be implemented alongside the Bill. In fact, we believe these to be critical to its success. Above all, however, we believe that the Bill will focus attention on rural needs. That is to be welcomed, and, in this regard, the Bill can, in our opinion, only be good for rural citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you. We are more than happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you for your presentations. You suggest that a new clause be added, requiring the Minister to make an annual statement to the Assembly on the assessment and impact of the Bill. You suggest that this will provide an extra layer of accountability and transparency to the process. Will you clarify why you think that that is needed?

Mr A Campbell: It is our understanding that the current wording requires that a report be laid before the Assembly. It is our understanding that that actually means that the Department compiles a report that is placed in the Assembly Library. While that may be available to Members and the Committee, it does not necessarily mean that there will be a public statement. Our suggestion is, to enable the issue to be put on the Assembly's agenda formally and annually, a statement be made on the actual impact. As I said, we are not legal experts and certainly not experts in how Assembly procedure works. We thought that we would put it in as a suggestion and see how members reacted.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Clause 1 states that the provisions of the Bill will apply to central and local government immediately. It is anticipated that the provisions of the Bill will be extended in the future to non-departmental public bodies such as Translink and Libraries NI. What is your opinion on deferring the Bill's application to those bodies? Do you think that they should be brought into the process earlier?

Ms Canavan: Our written submission states that we believe that they should be brought in earlier. They carry out significant functions on behalf of government, so they should be included. There is a provision that allows them to be included at some stage, but our opinion is: the sooner the better.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Declan, let us stick to the Bill and keep questions short. We have to meet Lidl at 1.00 pm, and there is a short break in between. I am just making you aware.

Mr McAleer: You have pre-empted my question, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Sorry.

Mr McAleer: Your organisations work closely with councils. Do you see councils having an important role in the Rural Needs Bill?

Mr A Campbell: Yes. I happened to be at a meeting of Mid Ulster District Council last night, when members were feeding back on their community planning/engagement strategy. It is very much rooted in rural areas. The fact is that some 75% of the population of the Mid Ulster District Council area is rural. The council held a series of public meetings last year, and that fact sits in the middle of its report on community engagement. That council is acutely aware of the big rural hinterland and how it needs to develop its services and to look at other public authorities buying into the delivery of the community plan, which will meet the needs of rural dwellers across that area.

A lot can be learned from what will happen, hopefully, at council level, because councils are close to the ground and closely connected to their constituents. Hopefully, examples of good practice will roll out of local government and the new super-councils in how they implement rural proofing on the ground. It is important that they have that commitment to rural proofing. Examples of good practice could happen more organically, because councils are closer to the rural community.

Ms Canavan: I concur with that. The localised nature of councils should, in theory, make the practice of rural proofing much more straightforward. I should also highlight the local action groups (LAGs). They provide good sounding boards for councils and their ability to consult immediately on rural needs and circumstances, so councils have a key role to play. As Aidan said, there should be the opportunity for councils to lead by example. There should be good examples of how they can engage with communities. They are localised and should be able to look at how they can deliver services more creatively and innovatively to address rural circumstances.

Mr McAleer: Chair, may I ask another question? Thank you for your indulgence. Do you envisage that the Rural Needs Bill, which is about creating a fair and equitable rural society, has the potential to apply to DFP, for example, particularly in the way in which deprivation is measured? That has an impact on how public funding is distributed.

Mr A Campbell: That is a good question and a broader question.

Mr McAleer: It is. I am aware of your organisation's work in looking at deprivation measures.

Mr A Campbell: The question is broader than Northern Ireland. The way in which deprivation measures are constructed is a UK-wide matter. There is an issue about how we work with partners in Scotland, Wales and England, where this issue is also live in rural communities. Deprivation can be underestimated in the current way in which the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) measure it and conceive how rural deprivation works. There may be some merit in asking DFP, through the Rural Needs Bill, to consider that, but it will probably have to be a UK-wide approach.

Ms Clifford: The Bill allows DFP to look with a rural lens at how it spends and how expenditure is distributed across rural areas. In the last evidence session, we heard that it would be really interesting to find out or to research the allocation to rural areas from various Departments. The Bill does not always have to cost or have resource against it. It can be about how services are reconfigured in a way that is more suitable to a rural circumstance or makes use of resources that already exist in rural areas, and it can be about reconfiguring a service as opposed to costing extra. Putting a rural lens on how money is distributed, and DFP looking at issues with a rural lens, will do no harm to rural citizens.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you very much. I am sorry for the rush. We will take on board your concerns and the issues that all the groups presented to us today. Do not feel that, because it is rushed, we will not do that. Lidl is coming at 1.00 pm, and we will have a short break for people who want to get something to eat.

Mr A Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity. If there is anything that you need clarity on once you have deliberated, just contact us.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will do that.

Ms Clifford: I want to mention that we spoke to the Western Health and Social Care Trust yesterday, which has significantly rural proofed its allocation of resources. I made a point about it not costing more but being a reconfiguration of how services are delivered. Two members of staff in the Western Trust are very keen to talk to you about how they have reconfigured resources in a way that has saved money in the long run for them. It would be worth having a look at their examples of rural proofing. I can supply those names.

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