Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome officials from the neighbourhood environment quality branch of DAERA and invite them to brief the Committee. They are Simon Webb, who is the Bill lead, and Mark Allison from the Bill team. Is that correct?

Mr Simon Webb (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): That is correct.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Excellent. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate your attendance at Committee today. Please feel free to give us any briefing that you may have.

Mr Webb: Thank you, Chair. If the Committee is happy with this, I will start with an overview of the clauses. I have grouped them so that we can get through that part of the introduction quickly. Mark will then speak to clause 11 specifically, and I will touch on some of the main points from the draft guidance, which is now with the Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 cover maintenance notices, which are targeted at low-level dilapidation. The provisions allow councils to serve a notice requiring interested persons to take remedial action. They provide for appeals to a Magistrates' Court and deal with breaches of notice so that a council can take remedial action in the event of non-compliance. That includes offence and penalty provisions.

Clauses 4 to 6 deal with the dilapidation notice, which is for more severe cases of dilapidation. Again, councils can serve a notice requiring interested persons to take remedial action, which, in this case, can include demolition. It also provides for appeals to a Magistrates' Court and covers breaches of a dilapidation notice. In the case of a breach, councils may apply to the Magistrates' Court for a court order or, in the event of non-compliance, can take remedial action. Again, that includes offence and penalty provisions.

Clauses 7 to 10 deal with dangerous structure notices. Councils can serve a notice requiring interested persons to take remedial action, which, again, includes demolition. Reasons for issue include the overloading of buildings to the extent that they become dangerous. Councils can also charge fees for exercising their powers. That would be by way of regulations to be made by the Department. It also provides for appeals to the Magistrates' Court. Again, the council may apply to the Magistrates' Court for a court order; again, the council can take remedial action in the event of non-compliance; and, again, offence and penalty provisions are included.

Clauses 7 to 10 also allow the council to take emergency action where immediate action is required to obviate a danger. It requires a council to issue a notice within seven days of work commencing and allows for appeals against that work. Clause 10 also includes compensation provision where a Magistrates' Court determines that the council was not justified in exercising the emergency power in a dangerous structure notice.

As I said, Mark will cover clause 11, so I will move on to clause 12, which relates to council costs. Clause 12 provides for the recovery of costs incurred by councils when they have undertaken remedial action under any of the notices or have taken emergency action, as allowed for in the Bill.

Clause 13 deals with the charge on land. Costs recoverable under clause 12 are to be a charge on land and registered in the Statutory Charges Register. The clause also provides for a council to register a dilapidation notice to enable a property to be sold with information, binding a future purchaser to the terms of the notice.

Clause 14 relates to interested persons' costs and specifically excludes a person who receives rent on behalf of another person from being pursued for costs.

Clause 15 deals with obstruction, provides for a court order where an occupier is preventing an owner from carrying out the required works and, again, provides for associated offence and penalty.

Clause 16 relates to information. It is about the power for councils to require information on, for example, ownership, other interested persons or property use. That provides for two offences and penalties.

Clause 17 requires councils to consult relevant colleagues before issuing notices relevant to a heritage site, and it provides for the Department to make regulations amending the definition of a "heritage site".

Clauses 18 to 21 provide for powers of entry by an authorised officer and fixed penalties of £500 to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice and failure to provide information. They also provide for the requirement for councils to have regard for the guidance, and that guidance must be laid, of course, before the Assembly. Those clauses also cover general issues relating to notices, including their variation and withdrawal.

Clause 22 deals with the broader issue of appeal. An appeal against a notice suspends that notice until the appeal concludes or is withdrawn, but that does not apply to appeals against urgent works under clauses 10 and 11.

Clauses 23 to 25 provide for procedures where a defendant ceases to be the owner or occupier before the end of the notice period. They define the terms "owner" and "interested person" and various other terms for the purposes of the Act.

Finally, clauses 26 to 31 provide for repeals as set out in schedule 2 to the Bill. That includes saving provisions. It provides for incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provisions by way of regulations under the Act. Regulations are subject to negative resolution unless they amend fixed penalty amounts or the definition of "heritage site" — such regulations are subject to draft affirmative procedure. Those clauses also cover general interpretation, commencement and the Act's short title.

I will pass over to Mark, who will look specifically at clause 11, which relates to defective premises.

Mr Mark Allison (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Clause 11, "Defective premises notice", is basically a re-enactment of a current power that councils have under article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, but we are re-enacting it to cover listed buildings.

The notice is used on occasions when an ordinary abatement notice under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 would not be timely enough. The power would be used in circumstances requiring relatively rapid remediation. We tend to use the example of a building that has an incorrectly installed staircase. The building does not have to be dilapidated or dangerous, but there would be insufficient time for a preliminary view, so that is where that power would be used. Nine days after the notice is served, the council can step in and carry out the remedial works, and there is also a counter-notice provision whereby the owner, within seven days of the notice being served, can say that he will do the work. The council then cannot take any action unless he fails to address the defects within a specified time.

We have had some discussions with DFC about its defective premises legislation, which is a different thing. I am sure that you will recall that, last year, it kicked off with the Victoria Square incident. When we came forward with the Bill, DFC thought that it would be confusing in the context of its legislation. We sort of take that point, and we have agreed that we will keep the provisions but will rename them and take out any mention of "defective premises", so that there is no confusion. We were thinking along the lines that, as it is tied into the clean neighbourhoods Act and the abatement process for statutory nuisance, we might call it something like an "urgent abatement notice". That would tie it in with statutory nuisance. As I said, we met DFC representatives and wrote to the Communities Committee to let them know that that is what we propose.

Mr Webb: Finally, I will outline the main points in the draft statutory guidance. That includes an overview of the wider picture around dilapidation and identifies the need for the legislation. It also lists the legislation that is being consolidated and enhanced by the Dilapidation Bill. The guidance sets out the four notices and emergency action provisions that are in the Bill. Clause 1 covers maintenance notices; clause 4 covers the dilapidation notice; clause 7 covers the dangerous structure notice; clause 10 relates to emergency action, which is, essentially, a subset of the dangerous structure notice; and clause 11 covers, of course, the defective premises notice as we currently refer to it and which Mark covered.

The guidance outlines the approach that the Bill uses to the term "amenity", with a focus on councils demonstrating how a building or land is an amenity as opposed to being excessively concerned with producing an overly technical definition of what "amenity" is. "Amenity" is used in its broadest sense, and it covers community issues such as neighbourhood safety and security and the care, maintenance and preservation of the local environment.

The guidance highlights the value of pre-notice discussion, which can be beneficial and can reduce the administrative burden on councils. It also stresses the need to avoid undue delay to ensure that the system is effective. The guidance provides a list of the key procedural steps, including building assessments, condition reports and record-keeping. It elaborates on appeals and highlights the high compliance rates and low rate of successful appeals against notices in GB. The guidance also outlines the monetary amounts for fixed penalties and court fines for breaches and failure to provide information to the council.

Usefully, the guidance highlights the benefits of publicity and the ripple effect of achieving compliance on the basis of a small number of successful cases. The concept of the ripple effect is that, if a council takes action, issuing a small number of maintenance notices in an area, that can be done at relatively low cost and may have the general wider impact of improving standards as other property owners and occupiers become aware of what is happening in the area and seek to improve their properties without the council necessarily becoming involved.

The guidance considers "detrimental" versus "seriously detrimental" and stresses the need, as in the case of amenity, for councils to consider on a case-by-case basis the condition of the site, the impact on the surrounding area and the scope of their powers in tackling the problem before they decide which notice they wish to issue. The guidance outlines the type of work in relation to dangerous structures for which councils may, subject to regulations, charge a fee. That is work such as surveys or obtaining court orders. The guidance stresses the need for a council to satisfy itself beyond reasonable doubt that the emergency action procedure is the correct route to take in the circumstances of each case. Should a court determine that the council was not justified in its exercise of that power, the council would not be entitled to recover costs, and the interested party would be entitled to compensation were they to have sustained damage. Therefore, it is crucial that councils use emergency action powers only where they are absolutely sure that that is the correct course of action. The guidance stresses that.

Finally, the guidance contains example letter templates in respect of maintenance notices, and those can be adapted for use in respect of other notices. The guidance stresses the need for councils, of course, to have their own letters reviewed by their legal advisers.

That provides, hopefully, a good summary for the Committee of the guidance and the clauses. Of course, we are happy to take questions, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Brilliant. Thank you so much for your time. You will be aware that the Committee has already had a presentation from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). We have commissioned work there, and we have already gone out for consultation in that space.

I am sure that it will be no surprise to you that one of the things that jump out to me is the discretionary powers and the discretionary nature of the legislation. Is there anything in there that can be developed so that we do not have a random approach by councils? Does the Department retain any powers of surveillance and powers to act with councils that take a different attitude, maybe for legitimate financial reasons?

We know, for instance, that there are different attitudes to planning, which is at the other end of the dilapidation journey. Does the Department have any oversight in that regard?

Mr Allison: When we say that the new powers are discretionary, we are referring to maintenance notices. Councils can use their discretion to decide whether a building or land meets the criteria for issuing a maintenance notice and can then talk to the people. We have outlined the pre-notification thing in the guidance. Councils will retain the discretion to issue maintenance notices. The word "discretionary" makes it sound as though they do not have to do it if they do not want to. That is why we say that the new power is discretionary. They have the powers already in the rest of the Bill, but we are strengthening them and re-enacting them.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I was quite excited when it first came out, given some of the significantly dilapidated buildings around Lisburn and Castlereagh. The word "may" is front and centre of every aspect of the Bill. I am not suggesting at this stage that that should be "must", but the issue is still rattling around my head. I have an overriding fear that property owners or amenity owners in council areas will be treated differently because a council's attitude to risk is completely different or the members who run the council take a different attitude to risk. Private property owners could be treated differently, depending on the council area that they are in.

Mr Webb: Yes, Chair. It is fair to say that the system should have an element of flexibility built into it. It should not be overly prescriptive. The idea behind the guidance and templates that have been provided is to ensure that there is some degree of consistency across the councils. A similar approach was taken with the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. Ultimately, councils will, of course, have their own priorities and resources. They will need to determine the priorities in their area. If a council is responsible for an area with high levels of tourism, for example, it may focus on public areas where there is a lot of tourist footfall. Another council might focus on inner-city residential properties.

Given where we are in the game of dilapidation, it is fair to say that there is not a huge amount of local government activity as things stand. There is probably a degree of confidence building that is required over time. The evidence from GB is that some initial early cases with early wins can start to build that confidence level. That can involve low-level cases. It is not necessarily the case that councils will go from standing still to 100 mph; they could put their toe in the water, issue a maintenance notice and see the impact of that. The evidence from GB is that it is not the case that the legislation is too technical; it is more about the level of experience and expertise in that regard, which is something that we will probably build up gradually. The guidance is designed to encourage that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It was interesting that you talked about looking at the learning from GB in that space. Before we get to dilapidation, there is a journey for any place or space. I know that, in GB, there is a vacant property levy for vacant properties that fall into a state of disrepair or dilapidation. Was any scoping done at that preventative stage?

Mr Webb: We are aware of the derelict sites levy, where you have an annual charge of, I think, 7% on a site. As I understand it, those levies are particularly focused on generating revenue and encouraging regeneration. Although the Bill is complementary to regeneration efforts, its primary focus is on the issue of amenity and mitigating the negative impacts of it. For that reason, the Bill does not include levy-type arrangements, but the maintenance notice provision is included, because such notices are considered to be very effective in early intervention.

When we look at the evidence from GB, we see that fewer than 10% of maintenance notice cases are successfully appealed. The evidence suggests that there is a very high level of compliance and that work is finished to a very high standard. The provision seeks to achieve early intervention and to stop things degrading to the point where more severe intervention is required. That is backed up with the potential for a fixed penalty fine of £500 or a £2,500 fine in court for breach of a maintenance notice. Certainly, the indications are that pre-engagement and pre-notification work can bring good results without even having to get to that point.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This is my final one. You will excuse me for saying this, but rural affairs is, obviously, the focus of the Committee, and there has been some critique — we will not call it "criticism" yet — that the Bill does not deal with the rural aspect in a fair manner. Do you contest or agree with that, or will you offer some other critique in that space?

Mr Webb: The argument has been made that the Bill could leave rural areas behind and may only benefit urban areas. First, the Bill does not specifically exclude action being taken on rural properties. It will apply across Northern Ireland. The intention is to provide powers Northern Ireland-wide, which, of course, is not the case currently. We have a fragmented regime.

If, for example, there is a rural property in a scenic area that is in a state of disrepair, that may be considered detrimental to the local amenity, because its visual appearance may negatively impact visitors and tourists to the area. It is not automatically the case that an isolated property that does not have a lot of surrounding buildings is off the table. Again, it goes back to the priorities for the council. There is flexibility in the system. If the area relies on tourism, the council may, on the one hand, have a very good case to intervene and tackle a property if it is detrimental to the amenity. Councils will have the discretion to determine what is the priority in their area. Tackling an isolated property such as a derelict farm building, on the other hand, may not represent an efficient use of council resources if it is not having a detrimental impact, because it is out of sight or not on a tourist route. There is probably not much point in the council putting in money to tackle that property.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It allows for common sense.

Mr Blair: Even if the Bill relies on common sense, I am hopeful that we can be positive about it and move from a place of doing little or nothing to providing opportunities for our partners in local government to do something proactive and, ultimately, conclusive on such matters. That is not to contradict anything that has been said. It is good that we have conversations, as well as questions and answers.

I get your comment that dilapidation is a journey or a timescale. The introduction of the Bill can be seen as the starting point for action. There are many, many examples of dilapidated buildings in existence that have completed their journey, and we can start to get to work on some of those, led by our local councils.

I heard the conversation last week. A very valid argument was made about a farm building that is two miles outside the town that nobody goes anywhere near. Unless the building was on the side of a road and attracted antisocial behaviour or presented some sort of risk, I do not think that anybody would prioritise it. All rural areas have some proximity to a village or town. It is not that those are being prioritised over rural areas. In many examples, I am sure, they are being prioritised as part of a rural area.

As I said last week — I do not intend to repeat this every week — those of us who have served at council and in the Assembly will have dealt with everything from the unsightly to the environmentally damaging and from rodent infestations or whatever to antisocial behaviour hotspots and unkempt areas. It is about trying to manage all that. It is not an easy journey. I know that it currently takes councils a long time. In light of that, I am keen to know whether conversations are continuing with councils on those matters as the Bill goes through the process, and are those linked to any conversations with the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and/or the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE)?

Mr Webb: Yes, absolutely. We have maintained contact with SOLACE, and we wrote to it earlier this year to ensure that it was still supportive of the Bill's aims. It confirmed that it was, and we have shared a copy of the draft guidance with SOLACE for dissemination to councils for input and comment. Like you, we are waiting to hear back from the councils on that front.

Mr Blair: OK. That is useful, Chair. The Committee will keep its eye on that relationship between the Department and the councils and scrutinise it to see how this progresses.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Declan, I bypassed you there. Are you content at this stage?

Mr McAleer: If somebody else wants to come in in front of me, they can go ahead.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I do not usually do that. I like to give you your place.

Mr McAleer: You can go to whoever is next and then come to me.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Well, do not be giving me any dirty looks, all right? [Laughter.]

Just because there are no cameras here, you think you are going to get all hard. [Laughter.]

Ms Finnegan: I have a quick question. Where a council is unable to find who owns a building, will be there be some mechanism so that the burden does not fall on the council?

Mr Webb: The issue of unknown owners has been a long-running one, of course. Whether the owners of a building are unknown or unidentifiable will, unfortunately, probably always be a problem to some extent. That having been said — I am sure that we have touched on this before — a lot of options are available to councils to identify an owner before they exhaust the process. There is a Land and Property Services (LPS) search, a Companies House search, as well as internet searches and private investigators. Clause 16 of the Bill includes information notices, enabling councils to request information. There are penalties for non-compliance.

The absence of an identifiable owner would not preclude the council from taking action. It could step in and undertake works itself, but that would have obvious cost implications, which you referred to. We could still look at putting a charge on the property, so that, were an owner to be forthcoming, the money could be recouped in the longer run. Crucially, however, councils will probably look at cases like that and say, "What are our chances of realistically recouping our costs down the line?". It may be that those unknown properties are not a priority over some of those that councils can tackle more directly and get good cost recovery for.

That having been said, such properties will continue to be a little bit of a challenge and a little bit difficult. We can only encourage councils to maximise the searches and try to identify owners and occupiers. Of course, we have broadened that definition. We refer to "interested persons" as opposed to purely owners.

Ms Finnegan: In the current circumstances, where the council already goes out with environmental health or whatever to try to source an owner of a property — it is grand, forget about it. [Laughter.]

I lost my train of thought. You have to put all the resources in place and staff are already there, but it creates a huge delay when you are trying to find a property. It gets delayed because there are no staff to cover it. In that instance, will more measures be put in place?

Mr Webb: Other options are potentially available. For example, councils currently have vesting powers. Of course, those have to be applied for certain reasons. A council could vest a property for reasons of economic development, for example, as an alternative if it cannot locate an owner. The Bill provides an alternative whereby the council could place the dilapidation notice for the property on the statutory charges register, meaning that, when the property was ultimately sold, the new buyer would carry responsibility for that dilapidation notice and would have to carry out the works associated with it. That can be done in cases where the council has not made any outlay and the property is sold on, if a buyer is forthcoming.

Ms Finnegan: Perfect, thank you.

Mr Irwin: We all welcome some inroads being made towards dealing with dilapidated buildings, but I fear that the road will be fraught with legal difficulties. The council will be reluctant to move in on some of the properties. You talked about properties for which the identity of the owner cannot be found, but Land Registry will know who owns the vast majority of them, so there will be few that are not identifiable. Will there not be an issue with councils being hesitant to move in on properties?

Mr Webb: There will be different appetites for that among the different councils initially.

Mr Irwin: I would think so.

Mr Webb: The Chair alluded to that being the case at the start. It is about getting all the councils up to speed. It will be a confidence-building process whereby they will gradually become more familiar with the process. Maintenance notices, for example, will probably be relatively straightforward. They deal with low-level cases —.

Mr Irwin: They test the waters.

Mr Webb: They can test the waters. They deal with low-level cases such as broken windows, the property needing a lick of paint or grass needing cut. Those are the types of low-level cases that you might deal with. As I said, there tends to be a high level of compliance with those notices in GB, so, if we see those notices here and that gets the ball rolling, it will not only build the confidence of councils but will prevent properties getting to the point of severe dilapidation on down the line. Hopefully, that will mean that there will be far fewer serious, more challenging cases such as those you referred to, down the line.

Mr Irwin: I mentioned that I have some concerns that old farm dwellings that will never be lived in again and are past repair will not fall into the trap.

Mr Webb: Amenity is the key issue. It would be helpful if I took a few seconds to highlight to members the fact that the majority of cases will be relatively low-cost. We are not talking about full refurbishment or renovation of a property. The key aim of the Bill is to tackle the issue of amenity: the negative impact of that property on others, essentially. If the property that you referred to does not have a negative impact on others, it is unlikely that the council would take significant enforcement action.

Mr Irwin: You will have an awful lot of those cases here.

Mr Webb: If they have a negative impact on others, the measures requested by the council would be to negate that negative impact as opposed to being a wholesale renovation of the property and interior works. It would probably be primarily about external appearance.

Mr Irwin: In other words, it is a common-sense approach.

Mr Webb: Yes, let us go with that. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That will never catch on. [Laughter.]

I have to bring Declan in now or he will give me a dig.

Mr McAleer: Thank you for the presentation. The note says that, instead of waiting for complaints, councils should be proactive. From the briefing that we took from our research officer last week, we learned that there is no clear inventory of impacted properties. How can councils be proactive when they do not have a clear inventory of impacted properties?

Mr Webb: That is correct. You will be familiar with the Ulster University report from 2018. It was not an inventory, as such; it was a desk-based exercise to help us to quantify the scale of the problem.

Councils are not precluded from producing a local inventory for themselves. We will not compel them to do that as a statutory duty in the Bill, because that would impose new costs on councils. It is fair to say that we would typically expect building control officers and the like — those who are on the ground — to be generally familiar with the key areas of dilapidation in their district. They will not necessarily be aware of every specific property, but they will be aware of where the main problem areas lie.

The guidance also mentions relying on a demand-led approach, so there will be a combination of both. Where local ratepayers have contacted a council about a problem property in their area, that is also a guide that the council can use.

Mr McAleer: You have engaged with SOLACE; have you also engaged with NILGA?

Mr Webb: I am trying to remember. We did the consultation in 2016 —.

Mr Allison: NILGA took part in the event that we held.

Mr Webb: Yes, that is right. We held a stakeholder event. Our current engagement has been through SOLACE, and we have encouraged it to write to councils.

Mr McAleer: It is important to get the grassroots view from councillors. Honestly, the principle of the Bill is first class, and everybody will be supportive of it, but there are always costs. Council officers will have to implement it. For example, I notice that, under clause 10, people will be able to appeal to a Magistrates' Court. If someone appeals against a decision, there will be a cost.

Mr Webb: Absolutely.

Mr McAleer: That will have be funded by the ratepayers.

Mr Webb: That is true. Inevitably, there will be costs associated with the Bill. Obviously, lower-level notices will generally incur lower-level costs, but you are right that there are grounds for appeal. We are happy to approach NILGA, if the Committee feels that that would be of help.

Mr McAleer: The principle of the Bill is great, but it has to be completely bottomed out so that people know exactly what they are getting into, in case unforeseen matters arise that could cause problems down the line, particularly for the ratepayer. Thank you.

Mr Webb: Thank you.

Ms Murphy: You mentioned the consultation with DFI and other statutory agencies. As you were speaking, I pulled up Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council's consultation response, which suggested that additional support will be required from the likes of DFI and the PSNI in some cases. Have you had any engagement with other statutory agencies to provide that support?

Mr Webb: The consultation went out in 2016, which is some time ago. Since then, we have engaged with DOF and various parts of DFC, including residential building safety and historic environment division, and with local government, but we have not had direct dealings with the PSNI. I know that the guidance refers to the fact that councils would be encouraged to notify the police in cases where they might attempt to enter a property, but, to answer your question, we have not had specific dealings with the police or DFI.

Mr Allison: We had some minor involvement with DFI, I think.

Mr Webb: That was quite a while ago.

Mr Allison: I cannot recall what that related to.

Mr Webb: It would have been a very specific issue.

Mr Allison: Yes, it was.

Ms Murphy: I am not talking about "compelling" PSNI officers to go out with council officers, or maybe I am; I do not know. From a legislative point of view, am I right that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to — I suppose that I will use that word — compel an officer or DFI official to come out?

Mr Webb: No. All the functions that are set out, including conferring powers on councils, are specifically in DAERA's remit. It is fair to say that there are no duties on other Departments.

Mr Allison: No, there are not.

Ms Murphy: I am coming at it from a practical point of view. I do not know what the letter of the law is for entry, if a council official has to get physical access to a building in order to assess its internal structure. Alternatively, a building may be at the side of a busy road, which would mean that DFI might have to get involved to close the road. There is no mention of that in the Bill, so I do not know where that would leave councils at a practical level.

Mr Webb: I will try to identify a bit in the guidance specifically on the powers of entry, so that I can read out a bit about what is involved in relation to the police. I know that there is no specific reference to DFI or road closures.

Miss Á Murphy: It should probably refer to Roads, rather than DFI.

Mr Webb: Sure. Clause 18(1) grants powers for authorised officers to enter land at any reasonable time for the purpose of determining whether a function of the council under the Act should be exercised; determining whether a notice, condition or court order under the Act is being complied with; carrying out examination of the land; taking a measurement or photograph or taking and carrying away a sample or other article for examination; or executing works following the breach of a maintenance notice or one of the various other notices. The power of entry is exercisable by force, if needs be, in an emergency. An authorised officer must produce his or her authorisation to act. I cannot see it here, but I know that we refer to the fact that officers are encouraged to notify police in advance of attending.

Mr Allison: So as to avoid any possible breach of the peace-type offence.

Miss Á Murphy: I am not sure whether it was Declan or you who touched on it, Chair, but I have serious concern that it would be applied differently from one council to another, especially in rural areas, where there are slight nuances in local planning regs. Obviously, each council will have different local development plans as well. What is your feedback to those concerns?

Mr Webb: With regard to the differences across councils, there is a case for a degree of flexibility and not being overly prescriptive, but I very much take the point that there would be different rates of acceleration, if you like, in the take-up of those new powers; it would take councils different rates of time to get to the same end point. There would, however, be benefits to councils in doing that; obviously, through improved townscapes and an increased rates base. As well as that, the powers in the Bill include revenue options for councils. You have the fixed penalty revenues, the ability to charge fees and the sale of items from a site. Councils can recoup a lot of money through those options as well. There are associated costs, but there are also revenues. As more councils take that up and become au fait with it and see the benefits in other areas, it will encourage others to come forward too.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you for attending. I am sure that we will have you back again. We will give you a harder time next time. We will work with you in a collegial way to get the maximum benefit out of the Bill. Thank you very much for your time.

Mr Webb: Thank you very much.