Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): There are five proposals for subordinate legislation relating to the Reservoirs Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 that have been included on the agenda for consideration by the Committee. However, the SL1s provided do not contain detailed information on the purpose or policy implications of each of the proposed statutory rules (SRs). I remind members that the SL1 stage of subordinate legislation is important and is the only opportunity for a Committee to influence the legislation. Subordinate legislation cannot be amended once it has been laid. Therefore, it is important that the Committee is content and has all the information that, it believes, is necessary to make an informed decision.

Members, do you wish to proceed with consideration of the proposals today, or do you wish to defer consideration and ask the Department to provide updated SL1s with more detail on the policy implications of the proposed rules and to schedule oral evidence when that additional information has been made available?

Mr K Buchanan: I want to talk broadly about all of this. To be fair, the witnesses have answered a lot of questions. That is all good stuff, and it has given us a good understanding. A lot of the information is in the consultation. However, what is in a consultation and what is in an SL1 — I am not being rude — is not the same thing to me. If the information that is relevant to the SL1 is in one paragraph, four pages or 40 pages, so be it. We are signing off the SL1, not the consultation.

My main concern is what support there will be for the groups. Fundamentally, you can get support to do the inspection, but that is only to get you a list. There will be no support after that. I am not content with what we have. Yes, there is a lot of stuff in the consultation, but you have too many pieces to add together. If we get this wrong, it will be wrong. I would rather have it in the SL1 or at least a link in the SL1 to a certain document that is relevant to the SL1. I do not want to have to siphon it out of the consultation document.

Mr Durkan: Chair, I am happy enough with your proposal to seek further information. We have waited long enough for this, so I suppose that waiting another while will not hurt. We would then have information on the implications of the subordinate legislation and on the implications of not proceeding down this route, where we would still be in the halfway house where there is legislation but it is not fully enacted. I am happy to support your proposal.

Mr McMurray: I concur with what has been said. How does it affect the timelines? Does it pause it all, or do things move on concurrently?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Correct me if I am wrong, but I think there is a bit of time because the plan is to lay the legislation in the Assembly in the new year. Am I correct about that?

Ms Alison Clydesdale (Department for Infrastructure): The five pieces of legislation are intertwined, so our advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) is that all five pieces need to go forward together. Two of the pieces are subject to draft affirmative resolution, and those are the pieces that cover the grant scheme. That is what is what will be debated in the Chamber.

It may be useful to know — I realise that I have not said this — that there is no grant scheme for reservoir safety elsewhere in the UK. England, Scotland and Wales do not have a grant, and, in those jurisdictions, reservoir managers are required to meet all the costs. Northern Ireland is alone in that respect. The elements of the legislation that cover the grant are subject to draft affirmative resolution and will be debated in the Assembly.

The other pieces for negative resolution would normally be laid if they were approved today, but, because we have been advised by OLC that everything needs to pass together, we probably will not lay the pieces that require negative resolution until the two pieces that require draft affirmative resolution are approved. If we were to lay some of it and it was not approved, it would not work because we need the five pieces together.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Are you happy, Andrew?

Mr McMurray: Yes.

Mr Boylan: As I was part of the process and I understand it, I would have been happy to move on today, but I accept that other members want information and have no objections to that. As has been said, we will have the debate in the Chamber anyway on the major factors that impact on this. If the majority of the Committee wants more information, I do not object.

Mr Stewart: I am content with that course of action too.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are asking for updated SL1s that provide more detail on the purpose and implications of each statutory rule. Obviously, as I put to the Committee, we would like to have another oral evidence session at a suitable date, when we have all of those details, because it is important that we get this right. It is also important that we are content. As Keith said, it is one thing to agree to something that is in the consultation, but having it in the SL1 is another.

Is the Committee content?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you for your evidence and for your attendance. We appreciate it.