Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the representatives to the meeting and invite them to brief the Committee. Hopefully, we have your name badges in the right spot. From the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA), we have Councillor Billy Webb, who is the president; Councillor Matt Garrett, the vice president; and Councillor Aaron Callan, executive member. From Building Control NI (BCNI), we have Mr Tom Lavery, chair of BCNI from Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council — I should have just said "ABC", because everybody knows what "ABC council" is — and Mr Ian Harper, building control manager at Belfast City Council. Thank you very much for your attendance, gentlemen. Go ahead and brief the Committee; the floor is yours.

Councillor Billy Webb (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Chair and Committee members, thank you for inviting us to provide evidence on the Bill on behalf of local government. Chair, you have already done the introductions. Today, we will provide contributions from the perspective of local government on the proposed Dilapidation Bill's ability, in its current form, to support the regeneration of communities; the significant challenge of public expectation that the Bill will create, despite it being a discretionary power for councils, given how wide-ranging it is; the significant potential associated resourcing; the financial implications for councils in managing that expectation in enforcement, administration and associated legal costs; the adequacy of sanctions, particularly regarding those who are intent on landbanking and insolvency; and the balance in the Bill between the public and private interest.

We in local government welcome the intent of the Dilapidation Bill to replace the current outdated powers to tackle neglected, dilapidated and dangerous buildings, since those have a significant detrimental impact on our communities. The Bill introduces a range of powers for councils to serve maintenance, dilapidation and dangerous structure notices. Those measures, if robustly implemented, have the potential to address both low-level and serious dilapidation and, in doing so, improve local amenity and support wider regeneration objectives. However, we must stress that local government continues to have questions about the ability of the Bill to deliver its intended objectives effectively. We outlined those questions in recent consultation responses, and we welcome the opportunity for detailed engagement with the Department on the provisions of the Bill and what can be done to strengthen it before it moves forward for further consideration.

Councillor Matt Garrett (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Thanks to the committee for inviting us today. I will speak for a few minutes on managing public expectation around the Bill and the financial resources and the capacity of it.

It is fair to say that public expectation on councils to intervene and remedy dilapidation is fairly high, and, whilst the Bill provides a framework for councils to act, that framework is extensive and brings significant powers to deal with everything from overgrown gardens to neglected sites, dilapidated buildings and dangerous structures. To avoid undermining trust, councils will need to have robust and workable comprehensive operational guidance. They will need template documentation and transparent procedures from the Department around all of that. Without those, the councils will be left in the impossible situation of having to manage the provisions of the Bill against varying and limited budgets. We know that all councils work differently when it comes to their finances. There will be differences in rural and urban demand. The result of that could be a wide variation in how the Bill operates at a local level, causing public expectation that far outstrips what councils can realistically deliver, especially if complex legal or ownership issues arise.

I will move on to the financial resources and capacity issues. The Bill will place significant new responsibilities on councils, including investigations, structural assessments, legal proceedings and remedial works. Those activities have substantial financial and resource implications. The use of fixed penalty notices is provided as an option, but they would not get anywhere close to meeting the costs incurred by councils and would therefore increase pressures on our ratepayers. Additionally, criminal prosecutions would not recover the cost to councils of the work, and councils would have to initiate costly civil action to recover those costs.

There is a concern about the workability of the recently presented draft departmental guidance and the lack of clarity on resource allocation, not just for now but in the long term, especially given the expectation in the guidance that the powers would be administered proactively and not just be complaint-led. Councils are rightly concerned, given recent experiences, that, while some resources may be provided to councils at the moment, they could be withdrawn at any time. There is a concern around all of that. Without a dedicated and substantial resourcing plan, there is a risk that the Bill's objectives cannot be realised, and councils may struggle to deliver outcomes across the North.

It is also important to let the Committee know that the figures provided by Ulster University in relation to the Bill's resource implications were determined without any specific input from councils.

Those are the issues around resources and public trust.

Councillor Aaron Callan (Northern Ireland Local Government Association): Thank you, Chair and members, for having us here today and for your time. The Dilapidation Bill is important legislation that affects councils across Northern Ireland. I will talk about a couple of issues; first, landbanking and, secondly, the balancing of public interest with private rights.

On the issue of landbanking and the deliberate avoidance by landowners or where owners are not known, the Dilapidation Bill introduces offences and penalties for breaches of notices and provides for charges to be placed on land. However, our experience at a local level tells us that some individuals and companies can exploit various routes, such as insolvency or evading remedy action and financial penalties. The Bill must, therefore, be strengthened in order to ensure that its sanctions and powers not only meet the intent of improving the exterior appearance of buildings but address the real need to bring buildings back into use and give them a proper new lease of life. We say that because there is a big difference between an owner addressing minimal superficial issues — the appearance of a building — and being forced to bring the building to a state of readiness so that it can be used for new purposes. Furthermore, powers of sale and clear procedures for dealing with cost recovery are essential. Only with robust sanctions and effective cost recovery mechanisms can we deter those who avoid their responsibilities. There also need to be powers whereby councils can take action where owners cannot be identified. Some of the current legislation already provides for that.

I will now turn to the balancing of public interest with private rights. Rightly, the Bill seeks to address the balance between public interest in safe, attractive neighbourhoods and the rights of property owners. The appeals process provides important safeguards for owners, but it must not create unreasonable delays in tackling urgent problems. The public interest in regeneration and health and safety must be paramount, and the Bill must ensure that councils can act decisively where public neglect undermines community well-being. Provisions for emergency action and defective premises are positive steps, but, again, they must be supported by clear and agreed frameworks to guide councils, robust sanctions and effective cost-recovery mechanisms that can be used as a deterrent.

Councillor Webb: To conclude, I emphasise that local government supports the ambition of the Dilapidation Bill, but its success will depend on further comprehensive engagement with councils in order to strengthen some of its provisions. That will depend on ensuring that councils have the clarity, the tools and the resources required to implement the Bill effectively. Therefore, we urge the Committee to consider the following before the Bill progresses further: to provide revised comprehensive departmental guidance, including operational procedures and templates that take account of council input; to establish dedicated, sustainable and long-term resourcing for councils; to strengthen enforcement and cost-recovery mechanisms, particularly in the case of landbanking and abandoned properties; to ensure that there is a balanced appeals process that protects rights without impeding urgent action; and to consider a commitment by the Department to work in detail with councils on the Bill's provisions in order to ensure that it is in the strongest position possible to meet its objectives and is financially sustainable before it progresses further.

Chair and members of the Committee, thank you for your attention. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Does Building Control Northern Ireland want to add anything at this stage, or are you content to take questions?

Mr Tom Lavery (Building Control Northern Ireland): We are content to take members' questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much. That was really good. It was genuinely rather excellent, I thought. I have a couple of questions written down, but I will start delving into some of the issues that you raise, because they chime with some of the concerns that the Committee has already indicated. I will presume nothing, except to say that, in any of the evidence sessions that we have had with anybody with a vested interest, they all see the value and potential of legislation, if it is good legislation, but have raised similar concerns to those that you have raised.

Billy Webb, you raised the issue of managing public expectation with regard to what is actually deliverable. I have also had a concern from the start about a postcode lottery. I do not know whether it was Aaron who said that different councils could take a different angle on this, based on the fact that it is discretionary. Is that something that NILGA or Building Control has invested in in their deliberations with the Department at this stage to try and bottom out?

Councillor Webb: The fact that it is discretionary will possibly lead to different approaches from different councils. It also goes back to the resources that councils would have to put into this. As to raising expectations from the public, the public know the dilapidated properties that are in their immediate vicinity or community. In our council area, we have some dilapidated buildings that the public complain about. If they see that we now have the ability to act on those, they will expect it. There will probably be a rush at the start, asking us to deal with the problems in their local communities.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): In one of the presentations that we had, it was pointed out, to be fair, that some of the intention behind the Bill was to gather up the disparate pieces of legislation — some of them are very old — and bring them into a much easier-to-access, simpler portfolio of powers.

You also raised a really important point about reopening the conversations with the Department around taking another look at the regulations and templates and stuff. Has NILGA any ideas in that space, in terms of solutions to problems that have been identified?

Councillor Webb: We have not identified anything in specific terms that we could take forward. However, we are eager to work with the Department.

I am not sure whether you wish to add anything to that.

Mr Lavery: Through the consultation process we have identified what the issues are, some of them from a legal perspective and others from an operational perspective. We welcome the new legislation. The legislation that we have is so outdated, and the Bill brings it all, as you said, into one location. It is just about making it workable. We have identified anomalies and areas that, basically, will not work for councils and will put councils off trying to use the legislation. As it stands, those anomalies could be corrected in consultation with the Department. They could be looked at and considered, and we would be happy to do that but, as it stands, it is not workable legislation for us.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Another interesting point is something that we have discussed at length: the fact that the Bill comes with no fiscal support or resource. Interestingly, you said that it could be an increased ratepayer burden if a council were to exercise its discretionary power in this space. Has there been any negotiation with the Department with regard to trying to identify another avenue for that fiscal piece to help empower councils? I will wrap this one in too — it is quite important, because it has been raised on a number of occasions: are the penalty levels sufficient to address the problem? You identify a property and there is a penalty for non-compliance: do the penalties need to be looked at?

Councillor Webb: I can speak only from my perspective. The penalties should be higher. Some of the particularly wealthy landowners have buildings that are dilapidated, and they could afford to pay the cost of the fine rather than implement the work that is necessary. There has to be quantification of what this might bring into councils. We accept that bringing some of the properties back into the rate base will help, but, nonetheless, there will be costs associated with applying the Dilapidation Bill.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We had a very interesting session, if you want to look back, on that piece about speculators who buy properties. It is a very interesting legal space as to how you apply penalties on different people.

I will go around the room to members, because there is a lot of interest in the issue.

Mr McAleer: Thank you for taking the time to come here today. We really appreciate your input. Throughout this, we have realised that you guys are really important; you are at the heart of all of it. You are the major stakeholder. The Department is going to rely on councils to implement this. That is the bottom line.

You said that you broadly support the Bill's objectives but there are lots of questions to be answered around templates, guidance and all of that. At some point, the Department needs to have a good round-table discussion with you to chat through all of the issues. All of you need to get around a table and thrash out all of the issues. From what I see, that would be an important development. What do you think about that?

Councillor Webb: Thank you for that. We would welcome that very much.

Mr McAleer: Chair, that is something that I recommend. Given the absolute centrality of the councils to this, if there are any outstanding issues, it is in the Department's interests to get around the table and thrash them out, Robbie.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do you want us to take that as a consideration at the end of the evidence session as something that we will look at?

Mr McAleer: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Clerk, will you remind me to return to that at the end of the session?

The Committee Clerk: Yes.

Mr Blair: Thanks to all of you for your presentation and input today. I also thank Alison Allen for being here as chief executive. I have two or three questions, the first of which is a fairly straightforward one about practicalities. I ask this on the basis of my council experience; Billy, more than anybody, will know about that. Is it not the case that councils already have widely and regularly used access to mechanisms to determine land ownership, such as Land and Property Services (LPS) systems? I recall utilising those when I was a councillor, and I have been here for seven or eight years. Is some of the mechanism required to pursue some of that work already in place?

Councillor Webb: Identification through LPS, yes.

Ian, do you want to pick up on the technicalities when it comes to work on the ground?

Mr Ian Harper (Building Control Northern Ireland): Yes. We have a process, and part of the process for taking action is to search for the owner through the Land Registry. If we come across the owner, we can take enforcement action. However, there have been a significant number of times when we have not been able to identify the owner and therefore cannot serve a notice. In Belfast, under the current legislation, which is from the 1800s, we have the ability to go through a process to get a court order to allow us to undertake the work, but that is not available across all councils.

Mr Blair: I am trying to build a picture of what is there already, including any infrastructure that is in place. I totally acknowledge that problems occur. I know of an example where a council has tried to pursue abandoned buildings in residential areas on the basis of health and safety and environmental governance, rather than structural. I know that the challenges are there, but the council access systems are there, and legal teams in councils are already involved in some of those processes. Is that not true?

Mr Harper: That is correct, yes.

Mr Blair: So that resource is there also.

The next question is more strategic. I am not deliberately playing devil's advocate, but councils have, to varying degrees and across parties, asked for further powers at regular intervals since the reorganisation, and the one that comes up most often is the devolution of regeneration powers to councils. Is this legislation not an integral part of future regeneration work and planning for councils?

Councillor Webb: It definitely is. Look at some of he buildings and properties that hinder regeneration of our town centres. The Bill will be of great assistance.

Mr Blair: You will agree that this is an opportunity to move us beyond. Good work has been done, mostly around the aesthetics — including shopfronts, signage, canopies, footway resurfacing and that type of thing. This could move us beyond to the infrastructure of our town centres.

Councillor Webb: It could bring buildings back into use, which is what is needed.

Mr Blair: That is where you see the positives in this, and you mentioned those.

Thirdly, I get the concern about discretionary powers; of course I do. I want to see consistency across the piece, and I want to see delivery that matches across areas, especially where there is a boundary between two councils and you could have a policy of rapid restoration in one place but not in another. The councillors in those areas would be getting the questions. NILGA has not always asked for enforced consistency. Differences and nuances between councils have been highlighted before, and urban versus rural might be part of that. You are not asking for enforcement of this consistently across councils in legislation, or are you?

Councillor Garrett: Consistency across councils would, ultimately, be beneficial across the piece. The reality is that there is not the ability at the minute for them to be consistent. Not just on this Bill but with any powers that have come through the review of public administration (RPA), NILGA wants to see parity across the board in the areas where councils are delivering. Where we have the ability to do that, we should, but councils are slightly different. They are financially different.

It comes down to what councils are able to bring in through their rate base. The financial ability of councils to have that kind of parity is down to the rates. Eighty per cent of councils' income comes from rates, and the reality is that that is different across the board. Only 20% of councils' money comes in through additional fees or services that they deliver and, sometimes, through central government for projects that they deliver. A lot of it is down to the housekeeping of the councils and what they can afford to pay for. Staff, services and all of that are primarily dealt with out of the rate base. If, through this legislation, we were to have the ability across councils to bring properties back into the rate base to give us parity across the board, that would be useful.

Mr Blair: Generally, NILGA as a body would be content if there were a drive towards ensuring that there was more consistency.

Councillor Webb: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, John. Good questions.

Ms Finnegan: Thanks a million for coming along. It has been so useful, and it is good to hear that you are broadly supportive.

Can you outline to me the extent of the consultation that councils have had with the Department on the Dilapidation Bill?

Councillor Garrett: I can talk about my council. There has most certainly been consultation with councils. We have sent back responses to the consultation, and I know that NILGA has been involved in consultation and discussion as well. So there has been discussion and ongoing consultation. The consultation responses across all of the councils have been to say that we want to look at this before it goes any further to see where we can make it workable. There most certainly has been engagement, but more engagement to get the legislation right for the councils is preferable moving forward.

Councillor Webb: The chief executive of NILGA and I met the permanent secretary two weeks ago about issues, and this was one of them.

Ms Finnegan: Did all councils take part in the consultation, or was it only a certain number of councils?

Councillor Callan: All councils. I can add that, in my council, I spoke to building control, and we responded along similar lines to what has been outlined today on our concerns. We welcome the Bill, but a bit more thought needs to be put into how councils can be supported in taking it forward.

Ms Finnegan: I agree. Without repeating what Declan has said, it is really important that the round-table discussion is had because, as Matt has said, it needs to be done right. Thank you very much.

Mr McCrossan: Thanks very much. There is no question that the legislation is well intended and important to restore the fabric of our town centres, particularly where we have landbanking and other issues where dereliction has occurred. It is worse in some council areas than others. It is worse in some parts of council areas than other parts of council areas, and it is a particular problem. It was raised with me at a public meeting that I had last night with a number of businesses in Strabane town centre. There will be significant regeneration there, but on the streets, there will be a lot of dereliction that needs to be tackled as well. I gave a bit of an update on the legislation coming down the tracks.

I have to say that the Department's attitude to it is a bit half-assed, if I can say that, Chair. It does not do justice to what is intended in the Bill, because it is basically saying that it wants everything to be like this but does not want to pay any money. It will add a further burden to the ratepayers, who are already up in arms at the burden that is being continually placed on them. Since the amalgamation of councils, they have been dumped on by Departments. It has happened via DFI; it has happened via this Department and others, where they want more from councils but give less. It is not appropriate. To ensure that it is doable and that it is effective legislation that will make a tangible difference, the Department needs to put its money where its mouth is.

It is not appropriate for departmental officials to basically say that they cannot foresee a great cost when it comes to the implementation of this. There is a significant risk because, ultimately, we do not see the consequences of legislation until it plays out. There are a number of issues with this: for example, the legal challenges, the burden of extra staffing and the sheer hassle of it. Remember that all politics is local, with local councils and local councillors, and there will be pressure mounted there with whatever actions are taken. I have serious concerns in that regard. Also, the cost recovery and the challenges that will come about as a result of appealing will tie up officers in protracted processes. All of that has cost.

If the Department is serious about resolving the problem — you have touched on it very well, and no doubt you will in any further conversations with the Department — you really need to labour the point that, whilst you are happy to take it on, you will do so only if it is funded. It has the potential to be a costly process in the long run, and there is really no incentive for councils to make it work, particularly if it is at their discretion. One building could be easy to restore while another could need a substantial amount of money to take action on or otherwise. I appreciate the need for the Bill, but with some legislation, whilst well-intended, from the Assembly, it is about passing the buck, and this is a classic example of that.

Councils need to be forceful with the Department. As I have said, a lot of responsibility is being dumped on councils with no extra resources; in fact, in real terms, councils are less funded today than they were 10 years ago because of the funding issues. You need to play hardball. I have big concerns about how this will be effective legislation with any tangible benefits. There will certainly be a lack of consistency if we go down this route.

It is more of a statement that I am making. I have questioned quite a bit about the Bill. Your concerns are well made to the Committee and certainly, Chair, when we are at the point of making proposals, I have no doubt that the funding element will be a core recommendation.

Councillor Webb: NILGA represents all 11 councils, as you know, and we have had meetings on this where there have been councillors from across the 11 councils. It came across strongly that we welcome the Bill. We see the need for it, as I have outlined, but there are issues that we would like addressed, and I am glad to hear today that there is a possibility that the Department will work with NILGA to iron out the issues that we have raised.

Mr McCrossan: There is a core fundamental point to all this. Upfront costs will have to be met by councils, and councils will then have to chase that money, which could take a very long time, so a huge amount of ratepayer resources will be tied up in that mess. I am not sure that the process is entirely appropriate. Money needs to be put to it to make it effective and make it work, otherwise we are taking resources from other council demands and putting it into this.

Dilapidation is a particular issue, and dealing with it will not be straightforward. It is not a matter of going into Strabane or Omagh town centres and putting a notice against all the derelict properties. People may have inherited those properties. You will find that some people will be difficult to trace; they may be good at hiding. There is landbanking. There are all sorts of unique circumstances. Equally, I have heard examples recently in which proving ownership was difficult because of how inheritance happened. Property might have been handed down to the next generation and then to the third generation, and, when you go looking for the deeds, you find that they do not exist. There are big problems with that, and we need to realise that the Bill, whilst well intended and whilst I very much support it, needs to have more meat on the bones for it to work.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Just to make the witnesses aware, our forward work programme anticipates our moving to clause-by-clause deliberation not next week but the week after. We will have more information next week. At the start, Billy intimated that there is a piece of work by NILGA; that needs to be with the Department. As Daniel said, you need to keep your foot on the gas. We will have to work at pace, because, as you know, there are about 14 months left of the mandate, and the legislation stovepipe is pretty bunged.

Mr Wilson: I give a warm welcome to the Bill and, if well polished, what it would ultimately mean in local areas. I had a good working relationship with Tom from ABC council in my previous role, and I want to ask him about an issue that came up numerous times. Tom may have useful information about a couple of instances where ABC council was out significant costs to deal with a dangerous structure. Will Tom, from his perspective, give us a wee outline of what not having up-to-date legislation and methods of getting back costs associated with dealing with a dangerous structure that the council was liable for meant? Tom, will you also outline how you see clause 7 on dangerous structure notices playing out where was an immediate serious risk of a building causing injury to a member of public on, say, a footpath or street? That would be useful.

Mr Lavery: Like all councils, we have taken on properties, and we have had to absorb the cost when the owner could not be found or was out of the jurisdiction and could not be prosecuted. Gareth is quite aware of some of those cases. Some are in his constituency, and some are ongoing. There are pure costs that a council cannot recover, which makes it very difficult for it.

Clause 12 concerns cost recovery, and I note the guidance on that. However, there are problems with that clause. I have used similar legislation and know what the costs are when a case goes to court. We see obvious gaps in the Bill. For example, Gareth mentioned the dangerous structure notices covered in clause 7, but clause 10 covers emergency work. If you go down that route, however, there would be several problems for councils when it comes to recouping costs.

These are purely examples to give members an idea. If you go down that route, there would be an appeals process. I am conscious that the session is being recorded, and I am about to tell people how to avoid paying costs to councils. [Laughter.]

Even in an emergency situation, an unscrupulous building owner, assuming we can find them, could implement an appeals process and stop us doing any work for 14 days or longer, possibly another week or two. Even if we eventually get to the point where the appeal does not hold, it could be three or four weeks since we issued the notice. When a case goes to court, the Bill states a number of things with regard to cost recovery. Clause 12(4) states:

If we need to demolish a property and secure a vacant site, we cannot recover the costs. That is clearly stated in the legislation.

The other problem is with clause 5. If a case goes to court and a judge rules that we should have used a dangerous structure notice under clause 7 because it was not that big an emergency — the judge's view may well be, "Well, you waited four or five weeks before you did anything about it" — councils cannot recover costs and could be sued for taking down a building. That is the sort of stuff.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The risk of further litigation is not negated because there is an appeals process. We have a whole legal profession who are masters at it, to be fair. We also have evidence of conflicting engineering reports. We have seen that in my council area. It is not so hard to take that to a court and say, "I have a conflicting report". There are weaknesses in it.

Gareth, have you anything else to bring in here? Thank you for that one.

Mr Wilson: No, that was my main point. I have a few

in real terms. That was useful from Tom. Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I appreciate that. Gareth, you froze there a bit there, but we got most of it. Thank you very much.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for being here. We have heard previously that resources are the problem and that robust guidance is required. We have heard about cost recovery, prosecutions and that type of thing. Do you believe that dealing with the issue should be offloaded, in its entirety, to councils, or should the Department play a role in that as well? For example, a council might identify a problem and where it is and take it as far as it can, but it might be an awkward situation that has to go to court. Do you think that the Department should play a role in that, or should it be entirely up to council to do the whole job from start to finish?

Councillor Garrett: I am happy to answer that. Speaking as a councillor who has every confidence in councils' ability to carry something through from start to finish, the reality is that, as we have said from the start, if we are going to get the Bill passed, it would be beneficial to get all its component parts right to allow councils to actually move down that road where they can take something from A to Z and resolve the issue. If we were to have different elements of different Departments dealing with different parts of it, I foresee the council to us and saying, "We had to do this". If you look at the planning process, where councils have planning powers, you see that a lot of the outworkings of that come down to consultation responses from Departments, assessments that they carry out, and all that. All of that takes time. As it is articulated here, however, if we have a building and people want to act on it, you want the council to have the ability to go in from point A to point Z and get it resolved from start to finish.

Mr T Buchanan: That is fair enough.

Ms Murphy: A number of my points have already been raised. With regard to Declan's proposal about having a round table, we are obviously under a wee bit of pressure at the minute to get the Bill through Committee Stage and to draft amendments. Chair, when will the Committee Stage finish?

The Committee Clerk: The date that we have is into the middle of May. We always undertake to do it more quickly, if we can, however.

Ms Murphy: As regards the round table between the Department and yourselves,

The Department will be at Committee on 5 February. I do not know what is in the officials' diary, but if the round table between the Department and yourselves could be pinned down before 5 February, that would allow the Department to come in and brief us on any amendments that it intends to bring forward.

I will make a broader point and go back to what Matt said about councils approaching the issue differently. Councils will approach it differently. There is no point in comparing Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to Belfast City Council; you are comparing apples and oranges. Obviously, there are different financial constraints across the board, but, as we discussed last week, it would be useful for councils to take a strategic look how the Bill could be implemented at a grassroots level, whether that is by a council — again, I will go back to Fermanagh and Omagh on this point — taking a look at all the derelict properties in its district and strategically identifying derelict buildings that have a detrimental impact to local amenities. That issue was raised even around the definition of "detriment to local amenity" in the Bill. I will labour the point about councils looking strategically at the implementation on a council-to-council basis.

Miss McIlveen: My point is in a similar vein to others. Thank you for your presentation. I am disappointed to hear from you quite late in the process. You are the implementers of the legislation, and the practical outworking of it is very much in your hands, so that concerns me. It would be useful to have a conversation with officials reasonably soon after the session to ascertain whether they are considering amendments, given the ongoing discussions and engagement that you have had. There is no point in the Committee spending a huge amount of time having conversations with the Bill Office if that is already en route to us.

I turn to the issue of consistency across the councils. I get the finance issue because I am a former councillor. There is precedent for collaborative working among councils on legislation. Have you had conversations about whether, ultimately, you will look at it from a regional perspective, rather than all councils operating independently?

Councillor Webb: We worked collaboratively on the response from NILGA and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). I cannot see collaborative work on implementing the Bill working with 11 councils, but we can certainly consider it.

Miss McIlveen: It is obviously something you have looked at in the approach on animal welfare, and councils have worked together on the approach to waste. I do not know whether it is possible to do that in order to avoid a great disparity. I am taking on my colleague's view about some centralised coordination or about that going back to the Department.

Councillor Webb: I will refer you to the two people who will implement it to see how they feel about it.

Mr Lavery: The dangerous structures aspect usually requires an urgent reaction, and I am not sure how collaboration would work on a regional level. We quite often get phone calls at 11.00 pm on a Saturday, and it is difficult to even get someone from our council to react to those calls, never mind other councils. We are open to considering that option.

Miss McIlveen: At this stage, it is only a suggestion. I am concerned about where we might end up. We are all in agreement that, in principle, there is an issue there, and I appreciate the concerns about the public's expectation about the delivery, but I worry that we might throw the baby out with the bathwater if we to the point of saying, "Actually, we are not going to do this if we do not get the money" or, "There are too many blockages in place". It is about looking at alternative means of delivery, if that is required.

Councillor Garrett: We sit here under the umbrella of NILGA, and we have 11 councils that work collaboratively on what we do every day. The ability of the different councils is different, but there is no pushback from councillors on working collegially and collaboratively with NILGA to push things on. Where we can be collaborative, we will. You will not find pushback, but we may need to delve more into the practicalities.

Miss McIlveen: That is fine.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will expand on Michelle's point, because I find it quite intriguing. It is already the case that some councils will respond differently to those challenges. Is there a benchmark in regard to that? Rather than us just looking to the Department for solutions, there is a part for councils in finding a solution, given that it is, and will continue to be, a discretionary matter. The risk will be if we do not baseline where each council is. To be fair to each council, it is about recognising that their ratepayer bases are different and that that work does not come with any money. We do not want it to turn into "good council" versus "bad council". Already, some councils respond differently to those challenges. Is there a benchmark in regard to that? We can only measure improvement if we know where we started.

Mr Blair: There are 11 benchmarks.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is there a table? Maybe the representative from Building Control would know from its discussions, because you are slightly separated from the electoral side.

Mr Harper: We can provide some experience from Belfast. It is important that the Bill deals with danger, amenity and things that are "seriously detrimental". If something is dangerous, we will always act on that and take that on board. Each council area might want to do that.

We ran a programme in 2012 where we looked at taking actions. It was funded by the then Department of the Environment (DOE). We brought in a matrix to look at the idea of what "seriously detrimental" would look like. In order to take a strategic approach, we surveyed all the streets in Belfast and tried to identify all the properties where there was a detriment. We then tried to use the matrix to prioritise which ones to take action on.

With the maintenance notice, which is part of the Bill, the bar is lowered significantly, because it is "detrimental", not "seriously detrimental". Obviously, depending on resource constraints, you will want to prioritise. I hope that answers the question. A matrix could be used to see what detrimental properties there are and how they could be tackled.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That opens up two further questions, if that is OK. One is around the agreed definition of the terminology. The terminology, for example, of "detriment to local amenity" needs to be interpreted exactly the same. I tell you why that is important. You pointed to Belfast, which probably has a really good ratepayer base. This is the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee; one of our pillars is rural affairs. I suspect that the Bill probably could, and should, have gone through the Committee for Communities, given its direct link to you guys. However, it sits with us, and one of our priorities is to look at the rural impact. I would hate to see legislation that suits somewhere like Lagan Valley where I live or Belfast but that neglects the rural disparity.

We often talk about the Bill's rural impact assessment. I would like to see that being rigorously looked at in regard to the legislation. I am sure that you will agree. It is not a question of whether you are content.

Gentlemen, is there anything else that you would like to close with?

Councillor Webb: Thank you for listening to us. As has been mentioned, we really look forward to further cooperation and emphasise that we welcome the possibility of the Bill coming through.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Excellent.

Mr McCrossan: Chair?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Keep it brief this time, Daniel. I know what you are like once you start.

Mr McCrossan: I will. Following on from what Declan said about the importance of sitting down with departmental officials, have you requested that? Has that been refused? Have there been any issues with that?

Councillor Webb: There has been no refusal. I am not sure whether there has been a request.

Councillor Garrett: We know that we are moving to the next stage of the Bill at which there will be potential amendments. On the basis of the consultation responses from councils, some of which we have outlined here, we will sit down at that stage and try to get those amendments right, along with anything else that comes forward, to create the good legislation that we all want to see.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Finally, before we let you go, it was our understanding that councils have had sight of the draft guidance: is that correct?

Councillor Garrett: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you very much for your time today, gentlemen.