Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Derek McCallan from the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA); Councillor Cáthal Mallaghan, chairman of NILGA's rural development action team and presiding councillor at Mid Ulster District Council; and Anthony Tohill, the CEO of Mid Ulster District Council. You are all very welcome. We ask you to make a presentation of up to 10 minutes and then we will ask some questions.

Mr Derek McCallan (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Chair, thank you very much for the invitation and for the welcome. You have already introduced my colleagues. We are working closely with the chief executives' society in our association. It is good to converge. With your permission, the chair of our working group, Councillor Mallaghan, would like to kick off.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK.

Councillor Cáthal Mallaghan (Mid Ulster District Council): First of all, thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak to you. It is always good to have an opportunity to give evidence to central government. I am sure that everybody sitting around the table knows what NILGA is — the local government association — and we have membership from the 11 local authorities and are supported by all the main political parties. The Executive acknowledged that no single Department has exclusive responsibility for rural areas, and NILGA also recognises that and has representation from all the new councils.

It is worth mentioning briefly that, at the outset, we sought the adoption of the principle of joining up separate Departments, strategies and pieces of legislation when we put our evidence to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in March. When it comes to the underpinning of legislation of this type, it is similar to equality legislation. Therefore, simultaneously, we sought assurances from the Minister of the Environment, the Department and the Committee that the development of statutory guidance, and the role and conduct of community planning partners, which was further debated on 12 November by the Committee, has within its final piece an addendum in relation to the rural needs legislation.

NILGA also wishes to acknowledge the cross-referencing by the Committee and the Department to NILGA's work in the establishment of a stakeholder forum. When things of importance to the rural population are debated in advance by partners, and joined-up outcomes are created together, they stand a better chance of working, despite the tight timescales underlying this consultation exercise.

So, we have been here before and will be here again, when the Bill is enacted, Chairman. NILGA provided a paper to the Department in 2009 detailing key priorities for local government in the development of a rural White Paper. Those were underpinned by rural community need, preserving the rural way of life, improved local connectivity and fairness in service delivery. It clearly faces the officials and politicians' change a bit. Rural need never changes, so the Bill is very much welcomed.

At this stage, we want to talk through the four clauses. Derek and Anthony will have their say on that.

Mr McCallan: Briefly, we welcome the comprehensive inclusion of all Departments in clause 1. The chair of our group has referenced the fact that, in our view, the DOE statutory partners for community planning should align and do the same thing. In practice, this has to be fully implemented and monitored. We can have all the legislation in the world, but, if it is not enforced and if there are inadequate resources and lack of strong guidance on the fulfilment of rural need, you may have a curate's egg: it will be good in parts. We do not think that they should have anything other than something that is good — fully and formally.

Anthony may want to say something on clause 1.

Mr Anthony Tohill (Mid Ulster District Council): Thank you. I have a couple of quick points. We feel that, for rural needs to be properly addressed across the public sector, it is important that clause 1 be extended to include all public bodies. It should be listed under the definition of a public authority, and it would be a simple but very important change to the Bill. If necessary, a schedule listing the bodies could be attached. I think that there is concern in the Department about bedding-in time, but there is a commencement clause, and the Department could use that in respect of when to enact the responsibility on different bodies. The Departments could come first, followed by the other public bodies at a later date. We think it would be better to have it in legislation now.

There is also concern that the word "consider" is not strong enough. It could be changed to "regard" or "due regard". These are words that are more regularly seen in legislation. The term "due regard", in particular, has been legally tested, and there is a working definition of what is understood by it. The last thing we want to see is what the word "consider" means being played out in the courts, when other words, which one ordinarily sees in legislation, could be used.

Mr McCallan: Chair, I am conscious of your time, so I will move on to clause 2. Guidance is welcome, and it has to be simple and enforceable; but we seek that the guidance is drawn up and co-designed between the local councils who, clearly, will have a major role in community planning and rural needs, and DARD, with some support from the DOE.

Mr Tohill: The Society of Local Government Chief Executives (SOLACE) would say that there is nothing in this legislation that compels anyone to give one iota of notion or regard to the guidance. Ordinarily, in legislation, you will see a clause stating that "public authorities shall have regard to guidance issued by the Department" for instance. We feel that that is needed, or the guidance could be easily set aside. You do not have to have regard to it; you do not have to comply with it. We feel that strengthening the wording of clause 2 would be an improvement.

Mr McCallan: I move now to clause 3. Whilst our written evidence supports the idea of having some way to quantify and qualitatively assess the performance of those who are to abide by rural needs, we are looking for a broad template of performance indicators. We are mindful of the fact that this it is not like planning — were you have to do x by y — but guidance that tackles performance will be very important in clause 3.

Mr Tohill: SOLACE asks that that would be reasonable and proportionate.

Mr McCallan: It is planned that the number of Departments will reduce to nine. Our fear is that if there are nine sets of key performance indicators (KPIs) from nine Departments, we will be spending all day ticking boxes rather than enforcing rural need.

Clause 4 is on cooperation with other public bodies. While the performance of the Departments and councils is vital to the implementation of the Bill, we are keen to establish whether the compliance of councils and other public bodies would feature in reporting on cooperation, or the lack of it. Some agencies and arm's-length bodies of Departments are materially included in the draft Local Government (Community Planning Partners) Order 2015, which was referred to earlier. They are not included here, so that re-enforces the point made by Mr Tohill, earlier.

Mr Tohill: Clause 4 states:

That could be strengthened by saying "to ensure co-operation". There is a bit of a disconnect, and, possibly, an opportunity lost to connect this piece of legislation to another one that is winging its way through the Assembly: the statutory partners for community planning. That legislation does not name any Departments, but this one does, so there is a disconnect between the two.

Much has been made of the role that community planning could play. We agree, but, without the necessary statutory backup, there is a risk that that may not be successful.

Mr McCallan: Drawing towards our conclusion, and before our chair sums up, we have a looked at a little bit of alternative thinking. Not everything brilliant is invented in Northern Ireland, as I understand it. We noticed that there was a process that concluded with a Community Empowerment Act in Scotland this summer, which encourages local rural communities to take ownership of community facilities and land. That is worth exploring.

My final point — and it is not the final point of the delegation — is that, with new consultation emanating around tackling rural poverty, rural social isolation and rural sustainability, it would be a good idea, in a very practical sense, for there to be a discussion with NILGA's policy team and the DARD rural policy people to get a simplification toolkit about what all this means, referencing the point that quite a lot of consultations align to the same principles, which we all support.

The final key point is about finance.

Mr Tohill: I will talk briefly about finance. This Bill will place an additional burden on councils; there is no doubt about that. It is not overly significant, although that is hard to say without seeing what might come from the Department in guidance. As long as the arrangements are developed with local government and are sensible and proportionate, councils feel that it is a burden worth paying to have rural needs put on a statutory footing.

Mr McCallan: Our chair will conclude.

Councillor Mallaghan: We are nearly finished. It is clear that the Bill is definitely a very good first chapter. To that end, we believe that it will work. However, three key points are important for it to be successful: guidance on the expectations of the Department; how it intends to monitor and report on compliance, and what the sanction will be if there is inadequate compliance. Those will be the keys to success, as will ensuring that councils are part of the design, implementation and delivery and are properly resourced in regard to the fulfilment of the legislative requirements on behalf of the rural community we are all proud to serve.

Chair and members, thank you very much for taking time to listen to us.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Thank you very much for your presentation. You have touched on this, but the Bill has no enforcement or sanctions; instead, it relies on public bodies, such as councils, to deliver this willingly. Does the Bill have enough teeth as regards enforcement to deliver? It is left up to the councils. There is no enforcement. We have asked whether, if there is no enforcement, there is any need for the Bill. If, at the end of the day, the Bill is really only guidance, because it has no enforcement power, some people will have concerns that it is not fit for purpose.

Mr McCallan: My colleagues, in drawing this up and in responding to rural proofing in March, pointed out that legislation that is toothless will be put on a shelf. However, with local councils, you get a very strong performance and accountability ethos. They will want to deliver on this. In many respects, they are already doing so. The fear has been expressed by colleagues that, unless there is very firm guidance or enforcement, then you are really doing rural needs in the dark, no bad pun intended. Other jurisdictions have underpinning enforcement. As our chair said, this is maybe the first chapter of a good book.

Mr Tohill: I echo that, Chair. Each clause can be strengthened to put the Bill on a better footing. We do not want to see people having to run to the courts to get redress for breach of statutory duty. There has to be something stronger in the Bill to compel all public bodies to undertake the consideration of rural needs as outlined in the Bill and comply with the guidance from the Department. The guidance cannot just be there and everybody allowed to set it aside.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): And do what they like, almost.

I know that you have spent some time perusing the Bill. If there is one thing you could change, what would it be?

Mr Tohill: It is that all public bodies should be included in clause 1.

Mr McCallan: We are all talking as one. We are consistent in our approach. Unless all those providing rural public services are in the Bill, you cannot even have partial regard let alone full regard.

Mr Tohill: There are too many organisations across health, transport, education, policing, the economy — every facet of public life — taking key decisions that affect rural needs. All those decisions are being made, but the needs of rural communities are not being properly addressed.

Councillor Mallaghan: We always have greater success when we work together.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I have said to so many involved that we are all over the place. That is the difficulty that I see with a lot of rural groups. There are so many of them, and that can be an issue as well.

Mr McAleer: A second ago, you referred to strengthening the inclusion of public bodies. Have you given any consideration as to how far the remit should extend?

Mr Tohill: I struggle to see why it would not apply to all public bodies.

Mr McAleer: To all arm's-length bodies.

Mr Tohill: Why not? I cannot think of a public body that does not have an impact on rural issues and rural need.

Mr McAleer: What about public bodies that are semi-private, such as banks?

Mr Tohill: That may be more difficult. Certainly, wholly publicly owned or out-and-out public bodies should be in the Bill.

Mr McAleer: You will agree, Chair, that extending the remit at this stage has been a recurring theme in the evidence we have gathered today.

One thing that has not been referenced in the Bill is where precisely is rural. The working definition is settlements with a population of less than 5,000 people. Are you content with that, or do you think that the Bill could be strengthened in any way to reflect that definition?

Mr McCallan: We provided evidence on this before. It provides a framework, but if there is a case for determining that there is rural need in an area above 6,000 people because, for example, of geographical or infrastructure peripherality, then rural need could accommodate that. These definitions are open to interpretation; but at the moment we accept that DARD and DSD can always change these formulas for urban and rural development and deprivation etc. At the moment the definition gives us a framework.

Mr McAleer: Thank you.

Mr Swann: Gentlemen, in a debate yesterday about the European social fund, one Member put forward the case that the organisations were not delivering in rural localities because the money was not there to do so. Would you have any concerns about an additional legal requirement for an organisation working in a rural area? Could it put some voluntary and community organisations off going into a rural area?

Councillor Mallaghan: In my opinion, coming from a rural area, most people we deal with in community groups are there because they want to be there. They are there because they want to enhance their local area, not because they are required to be there. I think that they will continue to be there regardless of who else is there. Anybody else who comes in to do that work on a legal basis should be seen as a support rather than as somebody competing with their work.

Mr Tohill: There are imaginative ways of doing it. You can have outreach to the rural area under the auspices of community planning. We can look and work with other statutory bodies to maximise resources, take out duplication and look for new and imaginative ways of doing things to address rural needs.

Mr McCallan: To amplify what colleagues have said; take other areas of Europe where there has been a strong uptake in rural areas: ESF money, for example. Going back to yesterday's debate, one of the ways in which Nord-Pas-de-Calais drew more money into rural areas was to simplify advice. Each existing recipient would have to comply with equality and related legislation. It is really about getting a toolkit of simple information to reassure those who are applying that they will not be caught up in the sort of legal dangers discussed yesterday and mentioned by Mr Tohill today. In other words, we do not want people to avoid applying for funding because of this. We appreciate that that is not the intention of the Bill. It is about how it is explained.

Mr Swann: It is not the intention of the Bill, but legislation sometimes has adverse consequences. I was just wondering if it has been teased out.

I know that Mid Ulster District Council has drawn down some ESF money. It will be mostly focused in and around Magherafelt for the job delivery programmes. You have ESF money coming in, and the organisation will come and work in the populous centre. Do you think there should be a power in the Bill to force that organisation out of the centre? I am not talking about decentralisation, but should it do outreach clinics in smaller villages, and all the rest of it, or simply be allowed to focus a programme like this in the main towns?

Mr Tohill: First, I will say that our ESF effort will be across the entire Mid Ulster District Council area and not just in Magherafelt, Cookstown and Dungannon. The Bill probably covers that. If you are required to address rural needs from the outset of taking the decision and developing your policy, you will embed those requirements into what you end up doing. You can get it right from the start. If the Bill were strengthened a little bit, as I outlined, it would provide the platform where you could certainly do much better than we are doing currently without it being overly burdensome.

We, in local government, contend that we are very much in tune with rural needs. We do not take them for granted, but we are addressing rural issues day and daily. We do it without documenting, monitoring or reporting on it. We are used to that. There is a lot of knowledge in councils that we can use under community planning to work with other organisations to let them avail themselves of our experience and ensure that it is not a burden. It does not need to be a burden.

Mr Milne: Thanks to all of you for coming along today. It is a worthwhile exercise for us, because we have heard the same language being used for most of the day. Part of the Bill is about social and economic need in rural areas. What is your interpretation of that, and what should it include?

Mr McCallan: From our perspective, and as we have stated in previous submissions, one of the benefits of local government is working within a broad framework of guidance and then interpreting these things locally, because one man or woman's broadband is another man or woman's community hall. There should be a determination of local priorities to be set within broad guidance, as is the case with a lot of European national policies. There may be a few core social and economic needs but, as alluded to before, each locality may have a particular lack or may come up with a particular idea. The local council can then form a hub of ideas around that. Mid Ulster colleagues to my left and right may wish to add to this.

Mr Tohill: It is an interesting question. You could push for a definition in the Bill. I am not sure whether that would delay the Bill, but it would clarify it so that there would not be any doubt as to what social and economic need means.

Mr Milne: It can be interpreted in different ways.

Mr Tohill: Yes, it can. In the absence of a statutory definition, we all know and understand it to be the very fabric of life. It is all aspects of life.

Mr McCallan: Infrastructure, sustainable jobs, access to technology.

Councillor Mallaghan: It is sometimes useful for definitions to be vague to allow for flexibility when required.

Mr Milne: Do you not think that it is left as a duty on councils to implement, consider or — as you say — give due regard to? The enforcement end of it would be where, if councils did not do that and somebody challenged it, they could take it to DARD or the ombudsman, for example. Do you feel that that is not strong enough to compel councils to do their duty?

Mr Tohill: We feel that it is strong enough for us because we are already doing it, but is the Bill strong enough for others? We would say that a number of public authorities that deliver public services in our area are not addressing rural needs.

Councillor Mallaghan: The first thing that came into my head when you asked the question was this; "We will not have any issue with that." It is about how it affects other Departments and organisations.

Mr Milne: So that it is across the board.

Mr McAleer: On the back of what Ian said about social and economic need, do you think it would be helpful, Derek, if the Department provides some overarching themes? During the rural stakeholder forum, around this time last year, one thing that was said to be important for rural proofing is consistency. If you adopt a complete LEADER-like, bottom-up approach and different social and economic needs are identified in the 11 different council areas, what impact would that have on the consistency principle that came out very strongly last year?

Mr McCallan: We have argued consistently for a framework — similar to what we have done with European regional development funding, European social funding and the messages coming from the European Union — that is about additionality, sustainability, and the encouragement of environmental and socio-economic issues. It is a given. Voluntary groups, councils and others may or may not consider it useful to have that broad framework, but it would do no harm. While consistency is a great thing, we do not want homogeneity: that is my fear. We want square holes from Dungannon and round pegs in Magherafelt. I use those purely as analogies. Rural needs should be determined by rural people and coordinated by those who provide the criteria and the funding. Guidance is always helpful as long as it does not push people rigidly down the road of, "You can only fund this."

Mr Tohill: There is a piece of legislation called the Social Need Order, so there may be a definition in that. It would be worth checking. I meant to check it before I came today.

Mr McMullan: Thank you for your presentation. How much of the rural development programme do you see as being a template for going forward with a lot of the things in the Rural Needs Bill; for example, determining what is rural?

Mr Tohill: The rural development programme and the structures established therein would be a good source of knowledge and information to feed into all this. The bodies set up as part of the rural development programme would not be subject to the requirements of the Rural Needs Bill. Nevertheless, the local action group (LAG) board is a very important consultee and partner in taking this forward and adding a bit of scrutiny to see if these matters are being addressed.

Mr McMullan: On community plans, we talk about each area being on its own, more or less. Surely, the community plans would be the template for taking this forward in each community area. A lot of areas do not and probably will not receive the same economic benefits as others. One example is that the gas infrastructure is not coming and will not be coming to a lot of rural areas. Do you see the community plans that the councils are drawing up as a template?

Mr McCallan: We have argued on the partnership panel that the community plans are essentially the foundation pieces of the next Programme for Government.

From that point of view, whether they are urban- or rural-oriented, they provide that investment framework for the long-term planning of everything from infrastructure to rural hamlets. They require the buy-in from Departments and agencies and the formal commitment. Therefore, they are very important. As Anthony has said before about advice on the other rural aspects, they can be all aligned: one, with regard to rural development funding, is criteria-, operation- and financially driven, but the community plans are essentially the binding glue that bring that legislation, implementation and investment together.

Mr Tohill: The difficulty and the possible missed opportunity is in not having Departments as statutory partners in community planning. You cannot put community planning as the thing that will fix everything and gel everything together when people who need to be at the table can choose not to be.

Mr McMullan: I always thought that community planning should have been in from day one. The way in which it was allowed to carry on was very lax. How will NILGA advise its members?

Mr McCallan: We will advise our members through guidance notes, information, awareness seminars, social media and presentations to each of the 11 councils. We have also galvanised the policy interests of members into small task-and-finish teams. Rather than have a room full of policy players, we will have a task-and-finish approach to that and then disseminate it. We also work closely with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, because the professional officer's role is equally important. That is why we have a chair of the rural development investment team, which you, Chair, referred to. We are bringing all that together. We will receive advice, collate that advice and then disseminate it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Is everyone happy? Thank you very much. No further questions.

Mr McCallan: Thank you, Chair.