Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I welcome Louise Warde Hunter, head of central policy group; Colette McMaster, assistant secretary; and Astrid Stuart, head of rural proofing branch. You are going to give a short briefing.

Ms Louise Warde Hunter (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Yes, Chair. I want to focus — I hope, helpfully to Committee members — on the key issues that were picked up last time. I appreciate that you will guide me after that. Thank you very much for welcoming us. We know that you are about to undertake your informal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill and to identify, as a result, any amendments that you want to propose to the Bill. Following this meeting, we will advise the Minister of the Committee's proposed amendments and seek her views as to whether she wishes to support them, subject to any Executive agreement that might be required.

I will move swiftly to the two key issues that the Committee wrote to us about following last week's meeting. The first was in relation to the language around "due regard" and "consider", specifically in relation to section 75. You had requested clarification on how section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies, in particular the wording of the duty, the bodies to which it applies, and policing and enforcement. We responded in writing to this request for clarification. I do not propose to go through our response in detail; I just wish to briefly highlight some key points in relation to the operation of section 75.

There are two duties under section 75. The first concerns equality of opportunity, and the second concerns good relations. The nature of the first duty under section 75 is a "due regard" one. Section 75(1) provides that:

It then sets out the range of persons, which I do not propose to rehearse, as I am sure that members are familiar with that. The nature of the second duty under section 75 is a "regard" one. Section 75(2) states that:

The Equality Commission's guidance provides the following clarification with regards to the difference between "due regard" and "regard" in the context of the two duties. The Equality Commission's guidance statement on section 75 explains that:

Hopefully, that crystallises that.

I turn now to the definition of a public authority under section 75. Section 75 uses a combination of approaches when defining a public authority. Some bodies are included by reference to another piece of legislation; for example, Departments are included by virtue of being listed in schedule 2 to the Ombudsman (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Other bodies are listed in the Act, such as the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, although I should point out that these bodies were inserted by other primary legislation, rather than included in the Bill at the outset. In addition, there is a power, under section 75(3)(d), for the Secretary of State to make an order to designate:

As regards enforcement of the section 75 duties, the enforcement of the equality duty is provided for in schedule 9 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Equality Commission, which, of course, was established by section 73 of the Act, has a duty to:

and to:

Public authorities are required to submit an equality scheme to the commission. Particular requirements for inclusion in such a scheme are, for example, the public authority's arrangements for assessing its compliance with the duties under section 75 and for assessing and consulting on the likely impact of policies or proposed policies to be adopted.

Schedule 9 also makes provision for the Equality Commission to investigate complaints regarding the failure of a public authority to comply with its equality scheme, and the commission is required to send a report of the investigation to the public authority concerned, the Secretary of State and the complainant. If the commission considers that any recommended action in the report is not taken within a reasonable time, it can refer it to the Secretary of State, who has the power to give directions to the public authority. The commission will also notify the Assembly of any report or matter referred to the Secretary of State.

That is a very brief summary for members of the clarification on the operation of section 75. You raised one other point with us: the role of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO). Members asked us to explore the role of the NIAO in relation to the duties imposed on local government once the Rural Needs Bill is enacted. We set out, in our written response to you, the scope of external audit in local government. That covers the audit of financial statements of the audited body, as well as its arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in its use of resources. The NIAO has advised that its audit work is underpinned in statute, has specific reference to the local government auditor, and would not extend to a monitoring or reporting role for legislation such as the Rural Needs Bill.

That, hopefully, clarifies that point and puts that out. The first point, though, which goes back to one of the important first clauses that the Committee was looking at around the difference between "due regard" and "regard", sets out for members, I hope, the distinction that the Equality Commission and the underpinning legislation has made on that, and the distinctive nature of those two duties. I will pause there. That was simply for clarification.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Oliver, do you have a question?

Mr McMullan: Yes. Thank you for your presentation. You say that "due regard" is stronger than "regard". In what way?

Ms Warde Hunter: We were drawing our analysis from section 75 and the guidance that underpins that. I am happy to invite in a colleague, in case there is any point that I have not picked up on in respect of what distinction that makes, Mr McMullan. Apologies for not being able to answer you immediately.

Mr McMullan: That is OK.

Ms Warde Hunter: I think that "due regard" carries a distinctive, greater weight, in legal terminology, but I am afraid that, at this stage, I cannot give an answer off the top of my head.

Mr McMullan: Is it right to say that public authorities have due regard within their constitution when they are dealing with arm's-length bodies or other bodies?

Ms Warde Hunter: Do you mean in relation to section 75?

Mr McMullan: Yes. In all the things that they do, they are already working with due regard, anyway.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes. If I am taking you up correctly and your point is about whether public authorities are working to the higher threshold that we have discussed with the Committee, yes, clearly, they must do, and they must be able to report on that, under that legislation.

Mr McMullan: I will give one quick example on disabilities. All staff in public authorities must have due regard to, and be able to work with, people with disabilities and be able to identify the needs that those people have against able-bodied people. I remember going over this before with them. That is fine; that clears up the point that they are working with due regard anyway, under section 75.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes, in that context, they are certainly obliged to.

Mr McAleer: With regard to the possibility of naming the arm's-length bodies (ALBs) or the various other public bodies in the Bill, did you give any more consideration to the issues that we raised here last week?

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes, of course we reflected on all of the issues that members raised, such as the relationship of the duty to show "due regard" versus the duty to "consider", and the issue that you raised, Mr McAleer, on basing the ALBs and non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in the Bill. Clearly, there are options. That is not something that was initially proposed in the policy, but there are options. The gamut of options ranged from putting them in the Bill, which seemed to have favour with some members of the Committee, through to putting them in the Bill but having a delay in the commencement date for that, which would, therefore, permit a ramping up and making sure that the legislation was bedding in and the necessary support was there, right the way through to introducing something through an amendment that specified in the Bill that the Department would be required to bring forward an order in a specified period. Our understanding is that that is not commonly used, according to the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), but it is another option.

So, while the proposal as it stands is to bring it forward at a later date, there are some other options, which range from putting it in the Bill, putting it in the Bill but with a later commencement date, and right the way through. All those clearly have their merits, and then there are some issues that we described as "dismerits" — I am not very keen on that word — around what might be less suitable about them. So, we have given it consideration, and we wanted to hear from the Committee today about where you are on this issue.

Mr McAleer: To specify them in the Bill, which we feel is the strongest option, would it be a requirement on the Department to consult with those bodies in advance of it?

Ms Warde Hunter: I do not believe that there is necessarily a requirement per se on the Department. However, it is highly desirable, if they are going to be in the Bill, that they would have been asked about it. I am happy to pass to a colleague for an extra bit of advice on that. In a recent appearance here, I said that we knew that there was a list appearing for scrutiny by the Committee for the Environment. So, there was that issue of cohesion that we were trying to take account of. Colette or Astrid may be clearer on the point of whether it is a specific requirement of the Department to consult.

Mrs Colette McMaster (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): It is good practice, so it would be anticipated that you would consult, and we indicated that we would. The policy proposal there at the moment is that we would build in that opportunity to consult, with a view to extending the Bill at a later stage. If we were to include other public bodies in the Bill now, the time frame of the Bill would not allow for further consultation with those bodies at this point before doing so. So, if that was an option that the Committee wanted to explore, we would be looking at who would be on that initial list — who would go in the Bill in the first instance — with perhaps the opportunity to extend it further at a later date after consultation. Louise mentioned the possible community planning partners —

Ms Warde Hunter: The statutory planning partners.

Mrs McMaster: — who have already been consulted as part of the community planning process. Other organisations responded directly to our consultation in the Department. So, it would be a question of whether it was a case of putting someone in the Bill at the outset and then coming back to consult.

Ms Warde Hunter: And then adding.

Mr McAleer: Having a commencement date in there or adding to the list.

Ms Warde Hunter: So, for instance, the statutory partners, as I understand that list to be at the moment, would not necessarily include the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), which is one of DARD's major ALBs. I have mentioned that before. The fact that the list is being considered by another Committee — that this is a group of organisations — might be a matter for consideration. One merit that the Committee might consider is the fact that there is an issue of cohesion and consistency, because those are bodies that will be engaged in a very specific way, and the local authorities taking forward community planning and taking account of the needs of rural dwellers will be an integral part of that. I can certainly see an argument for the development of the cohesion of that in the two areas.

Mr McAleer: That is strengthened by the fact that they will all be in the one Department.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes.

Mr McAleer: Rather than reinventing the wheel, the list is already there, and the Department will become the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).

Ms Warde Hunter: There is certainly a linkage there. I appreciate that other elements will go elsewhere as the Departments face new formations and reformation. Yes, it does strike me that there is potential for greater cohesion, if that was something that the Committee wished to consider.

Mr McMullan: I am looking at the timeline for doing that. If some of the functions of other Departments are transferring to the Agriculture Department, it would give you the chance to make sure that you get everybody in and do not leave other groups outside. That extra time would give you the time to bring them in.

Ms Warde Hunter: I am sorry, do you mean that you put them in the Bill and then delay the commencement date?

Mr McMullan: Delaying the commencement date would give you the chance to bring in those other groups that, some would say, should have been thought of and brought in.

Ms Warde Hunter: I can see the argument for saying that there is a ready-made list of those who have already been engaged with and consulted, albeit not by us. I want to make that clear. Delaying the commencement date could also allow for consultation for other bodies to be added to that list. You could be engaging with other NDPBs and ALBs that could, then, be added at a later date, as Colette said.

Mrs McMaster: There might be two processes. You could include some organisations in the Bill with a later commencement date, and you could have an additional, parallel process, where you consulted with a view to extending that initial list via the affirmative subordinate legislation route. That might involve two separate processes running in parallel.

Ms Warde Hunter: Those are the two key points, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The difficulty is that there are so many arm's-length bodies; it is about where you draw the line. How many are there in total? There is a big number of all types.

Ms Warde Hunter: In the list that I read out at high speed the last time, we had about 12 or 13. That was the existing list that is being consulted on.

Ms Astrid Stuart (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): But the complete list of arm's-length bodies and NDPBs is much more extensive.

Ms Warde Hunter: It is much broader.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That is what I thought.

OK, members. I will now ask the officials to return to the Public Gallery; if you are needed, we will call you forward. Is that OK?

Ms Warde Hunter: Certainly. Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will now begin the informal clause-by-clause process. This is the point where we finalise all the issues raised, before formally voting as a Committee on each clause. This is the last chance for members to air their opinions, concerns and thoughts, so it is extremely important that you try to remain in the room for the discussion. If any member feels that they are not content with a clause, they need to state what they do not like about it and what their solution would be.

Members, you will need to have the following documents open in front of you: the Bill, which is in your pack at page 238 but has also been tabled for your ease of reference; the summary of evidence matrix at pages 249 to 258; the key issues paper at pages 246 to 248; and a copy of the Hansard report of the meeting of 1 December, which starts at page 8 of your tabled papers.

We have only this meeting in which to complete the informal clause-by-clause process. An additional meeting has been arranged for Monday 14 December at 11.30 am to hear back from the Department on the ministerial position on each Committee request for amendments. That meeting will enable the Committee to decide if it needs to ask the Bill Office to draft any amendments.

Before moving on to the informal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill, I will take the opportunity to explain how the process will work. I will take each clause and each matter raised in connection with that clause in turn and will progress in a logical manner through the Bill. I will draw your attention to the evidence we gathered on the clause and gather your thoughts on how you want to deal with the matters raised. I will not jump about from issue to issue, but will focus on each clause and matter raised thereof. I will not go back to a clause or a matter just because a member happens to be out of the room when a clause or matter that they have an interest in is discussed. After we have dealt with the specific issues on the clauses, we will deal with some of the wider issues that are not provided for in the Bill, such as the baseline survey, independent monitoring arrangements and review. DARD officials are in the Public Gallery and are available to come to the table if required to clarify any points. If members are content with that approach, we will begin.

Clause 1 concerns the duty of public authorities to consider rural needs. It imposes a statutory duty on Departments, district councils and any other public authorities, which may be specified by order, to consider rural needs when developing, adopting, implementing or revising policies, strategies and plans and designing and delivering public services. The clause also makes provision for the Department to specify, by way of an order laid before and approved by resolution of the Assembly, any person who exercises functions of a public nature as a public authority for the purposes of the Act.

Members may wish to refer to the key issues paper in their packs for a summary of evidence gathered on the clause. There are a number of suggestions that I will take in turn. The first matter for the Committee to deliberate on is at clause 1(1), and it is to replace "consider" with "due regard". The initial commentary from DARD on that is in the tabled papers. This is one of the more substantive matters that the Committee needs to concern itself with.

I seek comments from members. Do you wish to propose an amendment to the clause to replace "consider" with "due regard"?

Mr McMullan: Chair, I propose that we change "consider" to "have due regard". We have heard that, under section 75, public authorities already have due regard when working with arm's-length and smaller bodies. They have been doing that for quite a number of years, and it is built into their policies. I was on council for 22 years, and we did that meticulously. I propose that "due regard" should replace "consider".

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): No other member wishes to comment. Are members content to propose an amendment to clause 1(1) to replace "consider" with "due regard"?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The next suggestion is that the words "budget" and "monitoring" should be added at specific places in clause 1. The initial commentary from DARD on that is in the tabled papers and seems to suggest that that is not required, as budgeting and spending plans are already provided for in the clause. Monitoring should be an ongoing activity rather than a function to be undertaken at the time of policy development.

I seek comments from members. Do you wish to propose an amendment to the clause to add the words "budget" and "monitoring", or do you believe that it is sufficient as it stands?

Mr McAleer: What page are the comments from DARD on?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): They are in the first and second paragraphs of page 17.

The Committee Clerk: In the tabled papers.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Yes. Those should be in front of you.

There are no comments from members. Are members happy to leave out "budget" and "monitoring". Does anyone have strong feelings on this?

Mr Swann: I accept the argument for not including the word "monitoring", but do we have an argument for not putting in "budget" at that stage?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Say that again: it was not clear.

Mr Swann: I accept the Department's argument for not including "monitoring", but should we still look at explicitly referring to "budgets", in addition to "policies, strategies and plans"?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The DARD position is at page 17. Do you want the officials back for a second to stress that?

Mr McMullan: It might be beneficial if they made it clear.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Louise, sorry for bringing you back to clarify this.

Ms Warde Hunter: You are OK; we are poised. Our advice on that one was that the DARD team thought that "budget" and "monitoring" were implicit in the language already being used. So, I think that it can be easily inferred from the precise language in the Bill.

Mr Swann: So there is an inference rather than a specific reference.

Mrs McMaster: That is right. When we consulted on the consultation paper, we clarified that that included budgets and so on.

Mr Swann: You would have no objection, then, to including "budget" specifically. If it is inferred, then —

Ms Warde Hunter: It was intended to be part of that catch-all language.

Mr Swann: But if there was a specific reference to it, there would be no real objection.

Ms Warde Hunter: I would not imagine that there would be a specific —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): It makes it easy then.

Mr Swann: Put it in.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you.

Ms Warde Hunter: We will not argue.

The Committee Clerk: If you want to leave your books there —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You will probably need them again. [Laughter.]

Members, are you all happy to add in "budget" and not "monitoring"?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will move on. The next matter for the Committee to deliberate on is whether to add the words, "that affect the" between paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 1(1). We had no specific commentary from DARD on that. Can I seek comments from members on whether they wish to amend the clause in that way?

Mr Swann: Chair, just go over that again.

The Committee Clerk: There was a suggestion from the Probation Board Northern Ireland in connection with clause 1(1)(a), which reads:

After that, it wants to add:

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I think that that makes sense; it is not about anything more than that.

The Committee Clerk: It is just adding those three words. Again, there was no commentary from DARD. So, that is maybe something that you want it to consider and come back with on Monday.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I do not think, from looking at it, that it changes anything..

Mr McAleer: On a point of clarity, just for information, are there situations in which public authorities would be developing, adopting, implementing or revising policies or strategies that do not affect the design and delivery of public services? Does this narrow it?

Mr Swann: That addition would narrow it.

Mr McAleer: That addition narrows it.

The Committee Clerk: From my knowledge, a public authority would develop, adopt, implement and revise policies, strategies and plans that are internal to its own management, for example, that have nothing to do with public services.

Mr McAleer: This narrows it.

The Committee Clerk: It narrows it, maybe. Things like internal HR policies or payroll policies or annual leave policies would not be —

Mr Swann: I do not think that it is —

Mr McAleer: I would omit it. I propose not to go with that clause.

The Committee Clerk: Not to amend. Who else?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I think that there is nobody hard and fast on this one. Members, are we content to leave it out?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The next matter to consider is one of the more substantive ones: adverse impact and mitigation. Members can see on page 246 of their pack that there is a suggestion that the following words be added at clause 1(1)(b):

DARD's comments are on page 9 in the fifth paragraph and on page 10 in the third paragraph of the Hansard report in your tabled pack. Can I seek comments from members?

The Committee Clerk: To summarise very quickly, DARD said that this duty would go beyond the aims of the Bill, as it would mean that public authorities would be required to undertake functions in a particular way that could have financial impacts. It could require a public authority to act in a way that was perhaps unlawful, leading to a clash between existing law, for example, and EU human rights. It said that there were other ways of doing that. That is just my quick summarising of what DARD said on 1 December. The information is there on page 9 and page 10 of the Hansard reports.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Have members any thoughts or opinions on this one?

Mr McAleer: In the Hansard report, the Department said:

We are proposing to change "considered" to "have due regard for", so does that change the context of this now?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will bring the officials back on that.

Ms Warde Hunter: I hear what the member says. On that one, we would need to take our own advice. In fact, on anything that comes forward, we would have to take legal advice. I wonder whether this guidance from the Equality Commission might help. I know that you are working through the Bill clause by clause, but now that you are proposing an amendment and looking at whether another amendment might make sense, this might be helpful to you. This is from the guidance on section 75, just to crystallise the "due regard" and the "regard" bit:

That shows that the amendment that the Committee wishes to bring forward is clearly about the level of how to achieve the policy outcome that you are after. The process is about the higher level of consideration. A duty to mitigate would be a distinct and separate step, and we would definitely need to take legal advice on that.

Mr McAleer: Is it possible to come back to that point on Monday?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We do not have much time; we need to be finalised on Monday.

The Committee Clerk: We need to finalise positions on Monday.

Mr McMullan: Could you read out exactly what this clause is?

The Committee Clerk: That the following words be added at 1(1)(b):

After designing and delivering public services, and where adverse impact is identified, public authorities should take reasonable steps to mitigate such impacts.

Ms Warde Hunter: Mitigation might not be the only course of action that a public authority could take when an adverse impact is identified. For example, it could decide not to proceed with the policy that would cause the adverse impact or it could take some other positive or remedial action. That is why, at policy level, we did not propose putting it in the Bill at that stage.

Mr McMullan: In other words, if we take out "mitigate", the laws are still in there to protect.

Ms Warde Hunter: That is a matter for the Committee. Putting those words in would place an additional duty on public authorities. I am not a lawyer, but I could definitely say that that is a further substantive duty. We would need to take advice. We could have those ready for you on Monday if the Committee was so minded.

Mr Swann: Do we need a definition of "adverse impact"? If you were to put in "adverse impact", is that on an individual, an area or an environmentally sensitive area? Does that start to tidy things further?

Ms Warde Hunter: I would need to take advice on that, specifically on whether there is a legal definition of "adverse impact".

Mrs McMaster: Going back to the Committee's request to replace "consider" with "due regard", and going back to Louise's explanation at the beginning, the Equality Commission's advice is that "due regard" requires an authority by statute to take the specified matters into account and give them the required weight when carrying out functions. That in itself is stronger and requires authorities to give them the required weight. "Duty to mitigate" means a requirement to do a certain thing, but you have already strengthened the duty to —

Mr Swann: — prevent it.

Ms Warde Hunter: Your first duty, by your proposed amendment, has already raised that threshold substantially.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Is nobody hard and fast on this one? What is the position?

Mr McMullan: We will get it explained further. It states that there are other ways that do not require legislation. Is that correct?

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes, there are other ways that would not require someone to have to undertake a duty. They might choose to mitigate in a different way. That is simply what I was trying to say.

Mr McMullan: I am worried by your explanation of mitigation and that it could hold up decisions in a local authority. You have due regard when implementing a policy. However, using "mitigate" would put a brake on a whole lot of stuff and could cause major problems in enacting a policy.

Ms Warde Hunter: I take your point entirely about delaying or elongating effective administration, but the advice that we had related to whether it might, unintentionally, put something in conflict with an existing, higher-level law. It was about trying to be judicious about not creating an unintended consequence.

Mr McMullan: I am —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Does Declan want to say a word, too?

Mr McAleer: The use of "reasonable steps" is key; it is the terminology used in the Disability Discrimination Act, for example. We are already proposing that "due regard" be included. If stakeholders feel that this piece of legislation is already weak, in the sense that there is not a strong enough mechanism to enforce it, we need to make the clauses as strong as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You propose that this be included.

Ms Warde Hunter: At the end of the day, we will swiftly take your points away and ensure that we get legal advice on that point, along with the others, and come back to you on Monday.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The next matter for the Committee to deliberate on is, perhaps, the most substantive, as it concerns the matter of adding other public bodies to the Bill now rather than waiting to do so. The Committee may wish to consider the commentary from DARD on that matter, which is in the Hansard report. It starts at page 12 and is the last paragraph of the tabled papers. The Committee's consideration continues to page 15.

Members may also wish to consider the work that the Assembly researcher has done on this matter at pages 34 to 40, listing the NDPBs found at indirect website.

The Committee Clerk: NI Direct website.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Sorry, the NI Direct website. From page 41 onwards, there is a list of public bodies to which the procurement policy of DFP applies. Page 53 contains a list of bodies that fall under the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. At page 59 of your tabled papers is information on the list of bodies cited as community planning partners. It is a draft list and has not yet been agreed by the relevant Committee.

I seek members' comments on that. This is a difficult issue, because there are so many lists; there are two or three that are all different. You could get into a nightmare scenario here. We could create an issue.

Mr McAleer: We can see that practically all who responded felt that this was a good way of proceeding. I reiterate the point that I made last week: this legislation applies to all Departments. If we take into account that a lot of the duties of Departments are discharged by such bodies, it seems ludicrous that the provisions of the Bill do not extend to those organisations.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I agree 100%, but the difficulty with having the names of them all in the Bill is that there are so many of them. You have two or three different lists, is that right?

Mr McAleer: Reflecting on earlier comments, the Department of the Environment is already working on and has compiled such a list, so we do not necessarily have to reinvent the wheel.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): It has a number on its list, is that right?

The Committee Clerk: It is on page 59 of the tabled papers.

Mr McAleer: I think that we can be prescriptive but with a facility to increase the list.

Mr Milne: I thought that it was said last week that going down this line would delay the Bill's passage.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I think that that is part of the difficulty.

The Committee Clerk: DARD said earlier that you could — maybe DARD wants to come in. We covered this earlier.

Ms Warde Hunter: I beg your pardon. What was the question?

Mr Milne: If we take in other bodies' names, it would have to go out to consultation, is that right?

Ms Warde Hunter: No, my understanding is that it does not have to go out to consultation, but it may not please those organisations because we have not gone through a consultation process and those who benefit from it. Colette talked earlier about good practice, and that suggests that you should consult before you put it on. One of the issues that Mr McAleer was teasing out earlier was the question of whether, if you delay the commencement of that, there would be any benefits. We were having to think through all the options, and we thought that that would at least allow further engagement with all those bodies and a bedding in of the Bill if it were to become an Act. Does anybody else want to comment?

Mr McAleer: The important point that we established from your comments earlier, Colette, unless I heard them wrong, was that you do not have to consult those bodies, even though it may be good practice. Rural proofing has been around since 2002, so none of this should come as a surprise to them. It was an Executive commitment in 2002. I think that we should keep this as comprehensive as possible, provided that it does not delay the Bill and give a commencement time to let them get their procedures or practices up to speed if they need to.

Ms Warde Hunter: Stakeholders highlighted that many arm's-length bodies will undertake significant functions on behalf of Departments and that the primary duty should apply to them as well as to Departments. We recognise that from the feedback that we got.

Ms Stuart: When we consulted on the policy proposals as is — that is, that it would be extended to other organisations at a later stage by subordinate legislation — those organisations had a reasonable expectation that they would be consulted prior to being included on the list. That was what we consulted on earlier in the year.

Mr McMullan: Could something be added to the Bill to allow those other bodies to come in?

Ms Warde Hunter: There is provision in the Bill as drafted to allow for subordinate legislation to bring a list forward. Mr McAleer stated his view that putting a list to be defined in the Bill is on the basis that a lot of those organisations have been familiar with this concept for over a decade now. That is a point.

Mrs McMaster: Although the initial Executive commitment did not formally extend beyond Departments, quite a number of the arm's-length bodies have already been rural proofing. That is what a number told us in their consultation responses that they are already doing. They are not all doing it, because it was not formally extended to them, but a number are doing it already through practice. So, some are doing it and some are not at this stage.

What we have at the moment is the power to extend the Bill to public authorities at a later date via subordinate legislation. I think what you have been talking about is possibly putting some in the Bill from the outset but retaining the power to extend it at a later date.

Mr McMullan: That is possible, and it would safeguard the position and allow everybody to be in the Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Put me right on this; I just think out loud sometimes. Does it not leave a difficulty with what you put in the Bill and what you do not? When you start to put some in and not the rest, where do you draw the line?

Mr McMullan: You put a time frame on it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): No, I am talking about the ones you are going to put in the Bill. We do not have weeks to make this decision, you understand. If we insist today that all public bodies are put in the Bill, do we not leave the Department in a difficult position? Who makes the decision on which bodies should be in the Bill and which should not at this stage? I mean —

Ms Warde Hunter: The obvious place to start is with the list that is with the other Committee. I think that would give the benefit of coherence in the very first instance. Clearly, the Committee might be minded to suggest that the Minister, in considering this, may also reflect on strengthening that proposal, potentially through her own ALBs. So, there is a bit around that. I think, though, that the measures in the clauses would still allow for more to be added. With that position, the Committee could be assured that we are conserving the position to add and to maybe do a wider consultation to get a bigger swoop.

Mr Anderson: Can you clarify this, Louise? You say there could be subordinate legislation, maybe at a later date, that could add to the list. That would then become a revised list. Are you saying that maybe there could be further subordinate legislation to continue to add to it? How many times would you do that before you get to a final list? We are trying to get to an identified list, but you could be adding and changing at regular intervals. What would those intervals be, and at what stage would they be done?

Ms Warde Hunter: I am happy to invite Astrid or Colette to enlarge on that. I suppose we have not given the consideration necessary to the intervals by which an existing list would specifically be reviewed. However, it is good practice to review the legislation once it is on the statute books to look at all its measures and the impact that it is having. I argue that you would review the totality of the Act within a number of years that are to be specified in discussion down the line. And it is at that point —

Mr Anderson: In between times, you could add to the list through subordinate legislation. Is that what you are saying?

Ms Warde Hunter: You could, or you could add at reasonable intervals, when the whole —

Mr Anderson: That is what I am trying to establish, yes.

Ms Warde Hunter: — review is being done. Clearly, that would be something that the Committee and the Minister of the day would look at. They would look at the efficacy of the Bill.

I argue that the advantage of having the subordinate legislation framed to permit, at reasonable intervals, a review of that list is about reflecting the dynamic nature of the institutions. It is a list of original statutory partners and whether things might change over time in that wider ALB/NDPB firmament. It makes sense to review and make sure that the organisations are relevant and, in some cases, in existence. That could be done in the context of reviewing the whole piece of legislation. None of my colleagues is contradicting me on that.

Mr Anderson: How would a new arm's-length body or other body coming into existence fit into it? Would it fall under this legislation, or would it have to wait to be added on? You talk about ones that are not there and have dropped out. What happens if a new one comes on board? How would that affect the Bill? How would they be affected by that?

Ms Warde Hunter: I suspect that it goes back to the regular intervals at which you review the list to see who is on it and who needs to be added or taken off. I suspect it would probably come within a practice like that. I am not sure whether Astrid or Colette have any views that they would like to add to that. That seems to be the sensible way forward.

Ms Stuart: Any new body coming into existence would need to be added by subordinate legislation. As Louise says, that may be done at regular intervals by reviewing who is on the list. However, they would need to be specifically added on.

Mr McMullan: I agree with what you are saying, Sydney. But if you had a time frame for reviewing your list, any new body that proposes to come into existence would know of that. I do not think that there would be a mad rush of new bodies out there.

Mr Anderson: But there is a possibility.

Mr McMullan: Yes, but if you had a time frame for reviewing your list, you would allow that —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are members happy and content — maybe "happy" is not the right word — to suggest that the list of 12 that the Environment Committee had is added on for the time being? Is that the view of the Committee? If we are not careful —

Mr McMullan: You could never get everybody on.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That is what I mean. I think that —

Mr McMullan: I propose that we add that list on.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We can add that list on and take it from there at a later stage. Is that OK, members?

Mr McAleer: I support what you are saying. However, I sit on the Regional Development Committee, for example, and I know that a lot of the DRD budget is spent on NI Water and Translink, which are ALBs linked to the Department. They are not going to be included. They are not on this list. There are many examples like that.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): But that is the difficulty. Where do you draw the line? That is what I am saying. Where do we go? That is the difficulty I see with that.

Mr McAleer: I am conscious that the more comprehensive the list, the more you can hit the ground running, rather than taking more time to review and put more groups on the list.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do the ARD officials think that Translink should be added to the list, as Declan suggested? What is your view on that?

Ms Warde Hunter: I can see how we would get through with a list of what are potentially already statutory partners for planning purposes. This is a personal perspective, but when I looked at it, I thought that it seemed to provide some better coherence where you are seeking to add organisations. The organisations that you mentioned, Mr McAleer, have not even been involved in our wider consultation on the document. That might give me pause for thought on that one. We went out to quite a range of organisations. For example, the Housing Executive was on the advisory group that we had in trying to even produce the Bill. So, some of those organisations already had familiarity with it. That might give me pause for thought, I have to be honest.

Mr McAleer: Fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK, members. We have to keep moving forward if we can. Are members content to amend the clause, adding the names of the 12 bodies that are on the Environment Committee's list? We could be talking about it all day. I am not trying to rush you, but if you are trying to widen the list, it is difficult to decide where you draw the line.

Mr McAleer: What about the review?

Mr McMullan: Can we put a time frame on the review?

Ms Warde Hunter: If putting a time frame into the legislation was another potential amendment, I would definitely need to take legal advice on it. I argue that that is a matter of good scrutiny, good policy and good relationships between the Minister, officials and the oversight Committee so that they can say, "Let's have a look at this and take it forward". I am not sure that putting a time frame in the Bill is advantageous, and to be honest, I do not know whether there is any precedent for that. If you are minded to do that, I would want to seek legal advice.

Mr McMullan: Could you put in the words, "The Minister reviews the legislation"?

Ms Warde Hunter: I will bring one of my colleagues back who has been involved in reviewing legislation, if you do not mind, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Go on ahead. That is no problem at all.

Ms Warde Hunter: I will pose a question. I am going for broke here. Colette, is it normally considered just good practice for the Department and the relevant officials to say, three years into the implementation of the Act, "We will now conduct the review"?

Mrs McMaster: It is integral to the process of making the Act that it be reviewed. It is good practice to do that; it is not required to be stated specifically in the Act.

Mr McMullan: OK. It will be done anyway. I am happy enough with that.

Mr Anderson: Could that be encouraged, for want of a better word, by the Committee of the day saying, "We think now is the time to have that review"? That would mean that it could be done at any time.

Mrs McMaster: I would have thought it would be within the ambit of the Committee to maintain an interest, not least because the future Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (AERA) Committee will have responsibility. That report will come before the Assembly. I argue that the AERA Committee will keep a very close watching brief on it, because it is the piece of legislation that this Committee has brought through.

Mr McAleer: Where a precedent is concerned, there was a UUP amendment to the Reservoirs Bill. That came from the UFU and NIAPA, which wanted DARD to look at the effectiveness of the Bill. They were looking for a duty to report on the operation of that Act. That amendment stated:

So, there is a precedent for a time frame being set in what is now the Reservoirs Act. The same principle could apply to this Bill.

Ms Warde Hunter: I was unsighted of that, Mr McAleer. I appreciate that there is a precedent. It is regarded as good practice, and it should be done, but clearly in the making of that Act, somebody went a step further.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are members content that we request that the 12 extra bodies be added?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will move on. That was the last suggestion we received in evidence on clause 1. Do members have any other issues that they wish to raise in connection with clause 1?

Mr McMullan: Can I ask something for clarification? When we say, "any other public body", what about private bodies?

Ms Warde Hunter: If you mean a private sector body, our advice suggests that the Bill cannot apply to any body outside of organisations that are clearly within the public sector. We cannot be putting banks or supermarkets —

Mr Milne: You said that, instead of the 12 bodies that are mentioned, it could be all public bodies. Would that not cover everything?

Ms Stuart: The problem with that is that there is no specific legal definition that would encompass public bodies generally. We would get back to the position where we are having to define what we mean by the term "public body".

Mr Milne: Fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Declan, come on quick.

Mr McAleer: Very briefly, I appreciate what you are saying, but there are situations where, say, community organisations and other groups receive public money. If they receive public money from the Department that is covered by the Bill, to some extent they should surely have some regard for the Bill as well.

Ms Warde Hunter: I would definitely need more advice on that. I suppose the wording would have to be changed, because if you are putting the due regard on a third-sector body, would it apply to every element of how that body conducts its business beyond the element that it is getting through public-sector funding? I think that would be the dilemma there, because it would have to apply to the particular organisation. I do not think that would work.

The Committee Clerk: Are you content enough with that? Do you need it to be any explored any further?

Mr McAleer: Yes. That is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Again, DARD officials will come back to us on Monday with a final position on clause 1.

We will now move on to clause 2, which is on guidance, advice and information. Clause 2 provides an enabling power for the Department to provide guidance, advice and information about issues that are connected with rural needs or ways of meeting those needs. It also provides the Department with the power to undertake permission or support by financial means or otherwise to research into any matter relating to rural needs.

There are three matters to consider. I will take them one by one. The first to consider is to replace the word "may" with "will". In the very first line, the clause should read, "The Department will take". The initial DARD response on this is in your papers. Again, I seek members' comments.

Mr McAleer: I propose that we go with it. It strengthens the clause.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are members content to amend the Bill so that we have the word "will" instead of "may"?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will move on. The second matter to consider is the suggestion by NILGA and SOLACE to amend clause 2 to say that any person must have "due regard" to the guidance, advice and information that is provided in clause 2(a). The DARD response on this matter can be found in your tabled papers. The second last paragraph is a non-committal response. Again, I seek a response from members on this.

Mr McAleer: Chair, can I be clear about what exactly they want to be amended? Is it clause 2(a)? What exactly is it?

The Committee Clerk: What they are suggesting for clause 2(a) is that, where any person is provided with any:

the words saying that that person must have "regard" or "due regard" to the guidance, advice and information provided should be added. It would almost be like a new clause 2(b). Do you know what I mean?

Mr McAleer: I have no issue with that.

Mr McMullan: What would be the effects of that?

The Committee Clerk: Do you want to call back DARD officials?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Call back the DARD officials.

Mr McMullan: There are implications of that for cost.

Ms Warde Hunter: Sorry, what clause are you looking at?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Clause 2.

Ms Warde Hunter: What is the third bit?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): It says that the person must have "due regard" to the guidance.

Ms Warde Hunter: This is a proposed amendment from NILGA and SOLACE. I beg your pardon. I am just trying to find our notes. I suppose the issue is that you already amended that at the beginning. I wonder whether this is the equivalent of tautology, in that it is unnecessary.

Mr McMullan: You are replicating, then.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes. Certainly, we knew that we would have to take specific guidance and advice on that. I know that the stakeholders were keen across the board to lift the first clause up to the higher duty. Clearly, it is in the hands of the Committee through your own considerations to decide whether you feel the overarching amendment goes far enough, really, so that you do not need to see the language repeated the whole way down.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): DARD officials can consider this. I do not think that the Committee is hard and fast on this. I do not hear anybody shouting out loud here. Declan, maybe?

Mr McAleer: The Bill states:

That just relates to the items specified in clause 1. We probably should include it.

Ms Warde Hunter: Sorry, Mr McAleer, you are saying that the Committee would probably wish to include that? This is about taking account of any advice and guidance that the Department brings forward. It is about having due regard to that.

Mr McAleer: That is not referenced in clause 1.

Ms Stuart: I suppose the point is that the duty is in clause 1, and it is proposed to amend that to say, "have due regard". That would be an all-encompassing duty. I suppose the question is whether an additional provision that requires due regard to the guidance would have any benefits over and above a primary duty in the Bill to have due regard to rural needs.

Ms Warde Hunter: Again, it could be an issue of inference, because if you are developing or adopting, implementing or revising, clearly bodies will look to the advice and guidance that the Department will bring forward to inform them.

Mr McAleer: I would not raise this if "due regard" was not included in clause 1 or if it was almost at the start of the clause. There is no reference to guidance or information in clause 1.

Mrs McMaster: Clause 1 is about the primary duty of public authorities. Clause 2 states that that duty is on DARD to provide guidance, advice and information to support public authorities in delivering their primary duty.

Ms Warde Hunter: I take your point. That would fundamentally shift who has the requirement and who is the actor. In clause 2, the Department is the actor, but in clause 1 all public authorities must act, subject to the "due regard" requirement. It shifts the meaning of that quite considerably. I think I understand what you are after in terms of a copper-fastening approach.

Mr McMullan: Is there any merit in changing it at all? Would it not be far better to keep it the way it is?

Ms Warde Hunter: We appreciate that NILGA made that recommendation. It makes things legally complex. We can take legal advice on this and come back to you on Monday, but if it requires a more nuanced redrafting we would need to share that with you and let you know about it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Unless we want to come back again before Christmas, maybe, after Monday.

Mr McMullan: I would leave the clause the way it is.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I am happy enough, but I have to go with the members.

Mr Milne: It says there that the clause imposes a statutory duty, but now we are going to change it to the other wording, "due regard", which gives it even more strength.

Mr McMullan: I propose that we do not change it and that we leave it the way it is.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are members happy that we leave it as it is?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): We will move on. The next matter to consider is the possibility of adding the word "training" to clause 2. The DARD response to the proposal is in the last two paragraphs on page 17 of the tabled papers. It indicates that adding the word "training" would create a substantial resource requirement and that the issue could be tackled in another way. The suggestion is that it be delivered through the Centre for Applied Learning. What are members' views on this?

Mr McMullan: Taking what is said there, if there are consequences for costs, we could be leaving the Department open. What training are you talking about? Local authorities have their own training, and there are bodies to do that training with. I do not see why we need the word "training" there, because it could have cost implications. Hidden costs could be added to that too; we do not know. I propose that we do not include it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Are members content not to amend this part of clause 2 and leave out the word "training"?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That is the last suggestion that we received in evidence on clause 2. No member wishes to raise any other issues in connection with clause 2. DARD will come back to us on Monday on the issues we have raised.

We move on to clause 3, which deals with monitoring and reporting. This clause imposes a statutory duty on public authorities to compile information on the exercise of their functions under clause 1 of the Bill and provide it to the Department. Clause 3 imposes a further statutory duty on the Department to prepare an annual report on the information sent to it by the other public authorities and information on the exercise of its functions under the Bill, and for that report to be laid before the Assembly.

We now come to one of the more substantive areas for potential amendment, which is around increased transparency and accountability in the information flow to the Assembly and in the provision that the Minister is to provide an annual statement to the Assembly. The response from DARD on that issue is in the tabled papers folder if members wish to take a look at it.

Would the DARD officials come to the Table? What are members' views on this?

Mr McMullan: My view is that government auditors audit councils and put the reports down for the public to read. I cannot see —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): There could be a different Minister in the next mandate, so you might not [Inaudible.]

I am only keeping you going.

Mr McMullan: I know. If a time frame is put down to revisit the legislation, then that could be the time for some kind of a report on how the Bill is doing at that time. If government auditors audit councils and put the reports down for the public to read or see in different places, I do not see why we should be any different?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do any other members have a view?

Mr McAleer: From last week's comments, I appreciate that it is very difficult to assess the impact of the Bill. The stakeholders who came here felt it was important to keep the Bill in the public domain and that it should be important for the Minister to reflect on its implementation at a certain juncture.

Ms Warde Hunter: If I may, Chair. We picked up earlier that you and Mr McAleer were interested in whether there might be a couple of options. If a non-prescriptive amendment were proposed that required the Minister of the new Department to give an annual statement then, without being prescriptive, it would be up to the Minister of the day as to what that statement would contain. If the annual report were laid before the Assembly, it could flag up to the Assembly that that was happening and encourage the various Committees to undertake the scrutiny that would be expected. From one point of view, it could be about giving it profile and visibility and show its importance.

We had a little bit of a concern — and it is a rather minor one — that, although the new Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs would be talking about the report, we would not wish it to be seen as being a matter to be dealt with only by the new Department DAERA. It is a matter for all Departments and all related public authorities, including those that might be specified in the Bill. If an amendment were tabled, and the language in it were not prescriptive, other than saying that a statement would be made, then it would be up to the Minister as to how he or she wished to take it forward.

Mr McAleer: I think that the UUP amendment to the Reservoirs Bill is an example of what we are talking about. The party succeeded in getting an amendment in the Bill to report on the operation of the Act every three years. There is the same principle here to include a statement on the operation of the Rural Needs Bill by the Minister.

Mr McMullan: I think that the UUP amendment is for new legislation on the Reservoirs Bill.

Mr McAleer: Yes, the report on the operation of —

Mr McMullan: Yes, on the review.

Mr McAleer: — this Act will be laid before the Assembly.

Mr McMullan: You could have that report and this one when legislation is reviewed.

Ms Warde Hunter: It could be that; or, if it were saying that DAERA would make an annual statement, then that could be linked to laying a report in front of the Assembly or in the Assembly Library. There is a bit around coinciding the actions, because DAERA will have to draw together the information from all the other Departments, and it will be gathering information from relevant organisations.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): It probably keeps the focus on the Act and on the delivery of the Act by the Minister. It can be done such a way that it is not totally prescriptive other than —

Ms Warde Hunter: — other than by placing a requirement on the Minister to make an annual statement to the Assembly on the Rural Needs Act. If it were as succinct as that, it would certainly give licence to the Minister of the day to highlight the relevant issues, clearly, as a member of the Executive speaking to Executive colleagues and all MLAs almost in that corporate way.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Is it better for us to leave you to look at the wording of that or do you want us to do so? Maybe it is a matter for you. What are members' opinions on this? I am not hard and fast on it, but I think that if there were an annual statement it might keep the focus on the Bill and on delivery, and I think that Declan and other members agree.

Mr McAleer: An annual statement, yes.

Ms Warde Hunter: So, there should be a requirement on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development of the day to make an annual statement to the Assembly on the Rural Needs Act. It would be as short as that.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Yes.

Members, we will move on. The next matter to consider is the provision for feedback to encourage learning. That suggestion came from AFBI but is probably better dealt with in guidance than in the clause. Are members content with this approach? I am open to suggestions on how you wish to proceed on this. How do you see this, Stella?

The Committee Clerk: It is just guidance. It is up to members.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): This does not need to be put into the Bill as such.

The Committee Clerk: No

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Members, we will move on. Perhaps the next matter falls into the category of giving the Bill more teeth. It is the suggestion from NILGA and SOLACE that the monitoring and reporting clause should also include a reference to quality and quantity of compliance by public authorities. This is dealt with, and perhaps part of the issue that we have just discussed regarding a ministerial statement to the Assembly to increase transparency and accountability. The DARD response to this issue is at page 11, and the fourth paragraph in particular, in your tabled pack.

The Committee Clerk: I think that that should be page 15.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Sorry, page 15. Is that still paragraph 4?

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

Mr McMullan: What paragraph?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Page 15, paragraph 4. Do members have any suggestions? What it means, in effect, is that public bodies would have to monitor and report how they have —

The Committee Clerk: It is this whole issue about whether the Bill has any teeth, and it is about compliance and the quality of compliance. If members get the amendment on "due regard" and the other public bodies added to the Bill —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): And the Minister's statement.

The Committee Clerk: If the Minister gives an annual statement, and there is, perhaps at the very end, a commitment to review the whole operation of the Bill after a certain period, then the Bill will have been strengthened substantially. So, do you need or want anything further?

Mr McMullan: The two bodies, NILGA and SOLACE, are the two main drivers for ensuring that the Rural Needs Bill is enacted through councils. They would be the two main drivers of it, so the onus —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): — should be on them?

Mr McMullan: I would see a lot of the onus being put back on them, rather than them asking us. They are the drivers of local authority.

Mr McAleer: That is probably what councils and other bodies should be doing anyway: demonstrating how they are complying. However, it would probably do no harm to include that and rubber-stamp it to clarify it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do you put it in as a recommendation, or do you put it in —

Mr McAleer: Clause 3.

The Committee Clerk: Is the whole issue around compliance, and not just saying "We are compliant"? It is that you have to quantify and qualify how you have complied. It is that whole thing about the teeth of the Bill, enforcement and —

Mr McAleer: My understanding is that we would expect that of councils anyway, but this will crystallise it.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): So, it should be easy for them to quantify what they have —

The Committee Clerk: They are saying that any public body that falls under the provisions of the Bill should quantify and qualify the level of compliance with the Act.

Mr McMullan: Can I ask a question? Surely the onus would be on the government auditor, because he does the councils' yearly reports.

The Committee Clerk: Oliver, to refer back to the advice that DARD got from the government auditor — maybe you could clarify that one again, Louise.

Ms Warde Hunter: The NIAO does not see itself as having a role in this at all, Mr McMullan.

On the clause that you have just looked at — around the Department providing guidance, advice and information — I would have thought that the Department, in supporting other Departments and cascading this to other bodies, could bring forward some thinking and advice on the sorts of things that people would look at as being their key performance indicators and on the format for reporting to try to encourage consistency and so forth. In fact, I cleared one of those documents just today.

Screening documents that go beside any substantial policy in section 75 are very clear. They allow for that sort of objectivity of completion. In many ways, we have good templates to think about. We then need to see what would make sense in bringing forward advice and guidance, and potentially even templates to assist organisations to that end. That may very well obviate the need to put anything more into the Bill but that is for the Committee to consider.

Mr McAleer: What Louise says would link back to clause 2 and the Department's statutory requirement to provide guidance, advice and information to public authorities.

Ms Warde Hunter: That would be my interpretation, Mr McAleer. The Department has that upstream piece to be able to support organisations in looking at that. Clearly, the business of every organisation will not always be exactly the same, but we could work with others in bringing forward advice on the broad outcomes and indicators. The important thing is providing consistency to the framework.

Mr McAleer: Could we come up with a version of that amendment that reflects what you have just said, Louise?

Ms Warde Hunter: Just to make myself clear, I was saying all that because I do not think that it needs to be amended, but that is just me. If you change "The Department may" to "The Department will", you are strengthening the duty on the Department to do that work. It obviates the need for it to be repeated further down.

Mr McAleer: That is OK for the Department, but what about public authorities that will be affected by the Bill? How can we shine a light on them to ensure that they demonstrate how they are adhering to the requirement?

Ms Warde Hunter: Through the gathering of the information. That is part and parcel of getting some consistency. You are enabling them to understand the sorts of things that should be in the reporting mechanism and framework. We are not placing a duty on the Department to quality assure. That is not the business we are in. We are not about quality assuring the inputs of other Departments or local authorities. That would take us into tricky and possibly impossible waters.

You are giving that clear framework as to what is expected. That is the important bit. It is then up to the individual leaders, Ministers, boards, trusts, etc, to look at that advice and guidance and make sure that they fulfil them correctly when compiling the information on the exercise of their function and sending it to us.

Mr McAleer: If we were not to go with that amendment, would we not strengthen the aims if we agreed to the proposed amendment to clause 2 by NILGA and SOLACE, which referred to "due regard" to guidance from the Department? The Committee agreed a moment ago not to go with that amendment. If we go with it, it would strengthen the position of the Department over public authorities. They would be compelled to have due regard to the advice and guidance that you provide. It would obviate the need for the clause 3 amendment. Do you know what I mean?

Ms Warde Hunter: Right. Clause 3(1) states:

As that stands, it is quite strong.

The Department now "will" — not just "may" — bring forward advice, guidance and so forth, and we can direct the way in which the public authority responds to us. We are stopping short of quality assuring what they give us.

Sorry, I do not wish to be talking at cross purposes with you, Mr McAleer, but I am trying to go by whether we are strengthening the proposed duties enough through the proposed amendments.

Mr McAleer: Sorry, I said clause 2 instead of clause 3.

Ms Warde Hunter: The amendment says "will" rather than "may", and clause 3(1) states that "a public authority must", which does not give any wriggle room.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK, members. Are you happy not to amend that clause?

Mr McMullan: Are we not adding "due regard"?

The Committee Clerk: There is no amendment in that area.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That is the last suggestion that we received in evidence on clause 3. Do members wish to raise any other issues in connection with clause 3? DARD will have taken on board the comments for Monday's meeting.

We now move to clause 4, "Co-operation with other bodies". We have only one suggestion for clause 4, and that is to add the words "good practice". That may be better addressed in the guidance. Members, what are your thoughts?

Mr McMullan: That is already dealt with in clause 3 (1):

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): No amendment, then.

We also had the issue of further clarity on the proposed cooperation and information sharing arrangements. That matter is dealt with at page 19. May I seek comments from members?

Mr McMullan: That would be reasonably covered by clause 3(1), which states:

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That is also more for guidance than anything else. Are you happy enough?

Ms Warde Hunter: Sorry, I did not hear that.

Mr McMullan: I was talking about clause 4 and cooperation with other bodies.

Ms Warde Hunter: The DSO's advice was very clear: it clearly refers to the objective of the Bill, so there is no need to —

Mr McMullan: I was saying that clause 3 covers that.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes. It is very explicit on what it is about, so there is no need to add anything. Maybe a single stakeholder thought that you needed to be clearer about the objective. The objective is all about rural needs. That is in the Bill, and the view was that it is unnecessary to add that.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK, members, we will move on.

That is the only suggestion that we received in evidence on clause 4. Do members wish to raise any other issues in connection with clause 4? DARD officials will take on board the issues for the meeting on Monday.

Clause 5 is "Commencement". No suggestions arose from the evidence on clause 5. Do members wish to raise any issues? You have not done so in the past, so I presume that you are happy with it.

Mr Swann: Is there a deadline or can this sit on the statute books indefinitely?

Ms Warde Hunter: Did you ask whether there is a deadline?

Mr Swann: Yes. Can this sit for the next 10 years without the Department bringing it on to the statute book?

Ms Warde Hunter: I will pass that to Colette or Astrid.

Ms Stuart: The advice from the DSO is that it is not good practice for primary legislation to sit indefinitely. There is an expectation that anything included in primary legislation will be commenced. The obvious purpose of a commencement order is to give flexibility as to when it is commenced but not whether it is commenced.

Mr McAleer: Is it possible to include a commencement order?

Ms Stuart: Clause 5 provides for a commencement order.

Mr Swann: You can put in "three months after Royal Assent" or whatever.

Mr McAleer: Is it possible for us to include that here? Can we state when it should commence? As Robin has just suggested, "three months after Royal assent", for example.

Mr Anderson: That is done on occasions, is it not?

Ms Stuart: Yes. You can have a provision, "Clause x, y or z comes into effect on Royal Assent." We opted, in the drafting of the Bill, to make provision for the Department to make commencement orders. That allows the Department flexibility as to when to commence certain provisions. We did that to allow time for the Department to develop the guidance and ensure that other public authorities are prepared for the duty when it comes into effect. It is really to ensure that the supporting framework is in place before the provisions of the Bill come into effect. That is the reason why we went down the commencement order route.

Mr Anderson: How long do we envisage the timescale being? Is it three months, six months or a year? What is it? Do we know? Have we an idea?

Ms Warde Hunter: The priority for the team that takes this forward should be that the Bill passes and that the guidance is produced. It will become the full-time job of a small team to make sure that the Department can do that. Given the proposed amendments that the Committee is agreeing today, it is all the more important that we get that advice and guidance ready. You propose, for example, to put the list of bodies straight into the Bill. I cannot be precise about the time, but we will need to dedicate resource to ensure that we can do it as swiftly as we can. I think that, if that were the case, our current Minister would want to —

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): She would be very anxious, I would say.

Ms Warde Hunter: — advance it very speedily.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Shall we move on to —

The Committee Clerk: Do you want an amendment on the timescale or the commencement?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I do not think so.

The Committee Clerk: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Let us move to clause 6, "Interpretation". Practically all who responded to the Committee indicated that definitions needed clarification, although there was some difference of opinion as to what the definitions should be. Members have DARD's response, which suggests that, as the definitions can change according to circumstances and over time, they are better clarified in guidance than in the Bill. If the definitions were in the Bill, it would be difficult to make any change. May I seek members' comments?

Mr McMullan: It says that DARD will work with local authorities, for example, and that it will produce and issue guidance further clarifying the meaning of the terms used in the Bill. Also, the Department will engage with public authorities and assist them in discharging their new duties.

The Committee Clerk: Are you happy with that?

Mr McMullan: If DARD is willing to sit down with local authorities and help them, I would be happy with that.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Is there a suggestion that we comment on this?

The Committee Clerk: No, just keep it as it is with no amendments.

Mr McMullan: Are we happy with the wording?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Are you suggesting that we comment on this?

Mr McMullan: No, but one of the things that I want clarification on is how the economic element of rural needs will be enacted, given that public authorities will need guidance on all of that. It says that DARD will produce an issues guide, provide clarification on terms used in the Bill, engage public authorities in developing the guidance and assist them in discharging their new duties. It is pretty clear that DARD will work with local authorities and produce written guidance — have I got that right?

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes. Chair, may I repeat what I said the last time that I talked about that specific point? We have gone by the NISRA definition, but the NISRA definition has changed. This is about making sure that the language can be supplemented through advice and guidance. Rather than putting a term in primary legislation that is, potentially, subject to change, this will be understood through the supplementary advice and guidance. Say, for example, that the NISRA definition of a rural area — the habitation or number of people living in area — were to change in the future, this would allow us to change the advice accordingly, rather than having to change the wording of primary legislation. You do not want to go back to have to change that.

Mr McMullan: It would also give the likes of SOLACE and NILGA the chance to feed into the Bill. They could bring their ideas of what they consider to be rural in whatever concept they want to bring up.

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes, in the development of the guidance.

Mr McAleer: You have a lot of the NISRA statistics, and I presume that the Department has loads of statistics from its work on the maximising access in rural areas to grants, services and benefits in rural areas (MARA) project and others, which will help you to identify social and economic needs, but we might need an extra line to help to clarify how you might identify those needs. That would be helpful. I think that groups are curious to know what social and economic needs are and how you will identify them.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do you have any suggestions?

Ms Warde Hunter: I think that there would be a bit about drawing on a wide range of information. I think that I said, the last time that I was up, that we would draw on a wide range of information surveys. In fact, we are conducting new research through AFBI on rural needs. I, in as much as I would not seek to counsel committee, would not propose adding a further line as the best way. We will, though, make the evidence base very clear. If the Bill becomes an Act, we could work closely with stakeholders and issue communications on what that would constitute. That, to my mind, becomes a matter of managing the communications and engagement with stakeholders, as opposed to the argument for putting your methodology into the Bill.

The Committee Clerk: May I suggest a letter of intent from the Department, for next Monday, on how it intends to develop the guidance and those issues? A letter outlining how it will be done would be on the record.

Ms Warde Hunter: I think that we can offer some high-level thinking at this stage about how we want to do this, particularly how we will wish to engage to take account of other members' views.

Mr McMullan: That could be a good thing to do because it would also feed into the community plans that shape how rural policy will come to the councils.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Is that OK? Will you come back on Monday with that?

Ms Warde Hunter: Yes, we have quite a bit to do.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): That was the only suggestion received in evidence on clause 6. Members have no other issues that they wish to raise in connection with clause 6, so we will move on. We will come back to that on Monday.

We will now move on to the remaining outstanding matters. A number of issues were raised that do not relate to the current provisions. The first matter for consideration by the Committee is the establishment of a baseline to measure the resources of and services provided by all Departments in rural areas. This was raised by Joe Byrne, and members have a copy of the DARD response. Do you have any suggestions, members?

Mr McMullan: I think that it would be down to the development of the guidance and the reporting on the new arrangements, because councils will have to decide their own budget. The guidance and help that the Department gives the councils might help them with their budget. It would be hard for them at the minute, not having done their community plans, to decide how they will strike the rate, for example, and what they will spend that on. A lot of that is down to the help that they get, and it is up to councils to come up with their budget. Can we determine how much they will spend?

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Members do not have any further comments or thoughts.

The Committee Clerk: So, there is no amendment.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The next matter for consideration by the Committee is some form of independent monitoring arrangements. This is tied up with enforcement and sanctions and whether the Bill should have more teeth. Members, have a quick look at the DARD response to that. The fact that we are adding "due regard" earlier in the Bill might cover some of this.

Mr McMullan: There needs to be "due regard" when it comes to expenditure. I do not see a problem with us coming up with the wherewithal through applied learning and so on, but I do not think that it should be down to the Department to foot the bill. That would be another hidden cost.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Do any other members have any thoughts on it? No.

The Committee Clerk: OK, so there is no amendment.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): The next matter for consideration by the Committee is whether the Bill should have a provision dealing with the closure of rural schools. This issue was raised by Jo-Anne Dobson, and members have a copy of the DARD response. What are members' thoughts on the matter?

Mr McMullan: I think that that encompasses the ethos of the Rural Needs Bill. It is up to those covered by the Bill to have "due regard" for rural needs. If the Department is looking at a rural school, it has to have "due regard" to rural needs etc.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. There are no amendments. Those are all the matters that I intend to raise as Chairperson of the Committee. I now formally ask members whether they have any other matter that they wish to raise. This is the last opportunity to do so.

There are no other matters, so I thank members for their attendance and focus today. It has been a useful discussion. We will have one more meeting this side of Christmas, on Monday at 11.30 am. We will hear DARD's final position on all these issues and what it is prepared to amend. We look forward to that. Thank you very much.

Ms Warde Hunter: Thank you, Chair and members.