Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome again departmental officials Simon Webb and Mark Allison. They will answer questions and discuss issues as we go along.

Also here are Aoibheann Baker from the Bill Office and Glenda Doherty, a Senior Assistant Assembly Clerk, who is predominantly working on the Bill.

Members have been provided with papers in the pack for this item. Clauses 1 to 15 were discussed at our meetings on 5, 12 and 19 February and have been included for reference in case members wish to return to them. Members should note that rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights are noted in green text under the relevant clauses. Round-table discussions between DAERA officials, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and Building Control Northern Ireland (BCNI) representatives took place on Tuesday, and Glenda and Aoibheann were in attendance. An informal note of that meeting has been prepared by Glenda and is included in the tabled papers. A further meeting has been scheduled for Monday 2 March. Members, I propose that we discuss with officials the outcome of both those meetings at next week's Committee meeting and get on with the remaining clauses in the meantime. I propose that we start at clause 16. Are members content with that approach?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Simon and Mark, welcome back. Will you please give us an overview of clauses 16 to 20, which are under the heading "Miscellaneous functions of district councils"?

We have heard concerns that clause 16 is weaker than the existing article 72 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 as it would limit a council's ability to obtain ownership information from agents or solicitors. The Committee should consider whether any interference with the article 8 rights of the person from whom the information is sought is justified and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, which is to obtain information about the owners/occupiers of the relevant property or land that is the subject of the notice.

Mr Mark Allison (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The notice in clause 16 requires the recipient to provide information about the ownership of the property, and of any other person who may have an interest in the property. Failure to comply with that notice is an offence punishable in the Magistrates' Court with a fine of up to £2,500. It will also be an offence to make a false or misleading statement in relation to the notice, which will be punishable in the Magistrates' Court with a fine of up to £5,000. In addition, you can go to the Crown Court and be fined on indictment, or the prison sentence is there, too.

Clause 16 is a current power in various pieces of legislation. Mention has been made of article 72 of the 1978 Order. The clause was based on section 330 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which we discussed at our meeting on Tuesday. Some of the local government officials queried whether the section 330 power was included, and we were able to confirm that it was under clause 16. However, we can certainly look at the article 72 power. It is a broader power that would enable the council to require information from, basically, anyone.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have just one question. You referenced article 72. There are concerns that the Bill contains a weaker power. You said that it is a broader power, but is it redefining the purpose of clause 16? If it is, would that be outwith the wider powers under article 72, or do you think —?

Mr Allison: It is, basically, the same power as that in section 330 of the 1990 Act. It is more tied to people with interest in the land, but we have tried to broaden it out. We can look at the wording of article 72. It can be amended. We are not going to die in a ditch over it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Members, are there any further queries or questions?

Mr Wilson: There is a property in my constituency in which a bank has some type of interest, but there is a real difficulty in finding out who ultimately owns it. Land Registry is not coming up trumps. What does the council do in that circumstance? How prescriptive is that clause when it comes to ultimately finding out that information?

Mr Simon Webb (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): A bank, as a financial institution, would potentially be a party on which the council could serve a notice. Equally, if a bank has an interest in a property, it can be approached to provide information.

Mr Wilson: It would be different if somebody were to occupy the land and directly or indirectly receive rent for it, but we are usually talking about a building that is not worth inhabiting in any shape or form. In those circumstances, it is less likely that that information will be found.

Mr Webb: Yes. There may be cases where, depending on the nature of the property, it is harder to identify a specific owner. However, if there is a third party with a potential financial interest — perhaps there is a mortgage on the property — they would fall within the definition of an interested person.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have touched on this issue previously regarding the slightly more complex arrangements around trustees of buildings and property, where you have multiple names, and some of those people cannot be found. That may be an issue for the courts rather than the legislation, but are there any irregularities in the offences and penalties, or is it common practice that it is already covered? Say that you have the names of 12 trustees, and eight of them can be found and four cannot be found and are possibly deceased. Is there a test in law of the fairness of offences and penalties?

Mr Webb: I do not know, Chair, but I will certainly check that out.

Mr Allison: We talk about partnerships in clause 23(6). I am not sure whether that is what you are getting at.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Will you explain clause 23 a bit more to me? That might assuage my concerns.

Mr Webb: Clause 23(6) states:

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am thinking about how that butts up against people's rights. People enter into trustee arrangements in good faith, including for charitable purposes, or for organisations. At that point, it is an equal share of the offence, the fines and so on. However, through death or unintended consequences, those things may not be updated, and people could fall foul of the law due to unintended consequences, rather than anything deliberate. That might be covered in clause 23, but I am not sure that it is specifically. Obviously, the courts will determine the scale of the offence and so on. Can we have a wee bit of clarity on that? Those things could, and should, be tidied up. Is that OK?

Mr Allison: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members have any other questions or queries about clause 16? No.

We move on to clause 17, which is entitled "Consultation with planning department". Ulster Architectural Heritage has concerns that various existing relevant council powers under the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 are likely to be duplicated or, in some cases, weakened by the clause. It was recommended that clause 17(1) be amended to include clear emergency consultation procedures for listed or heritage sites, and that consideration be given to whether the definition of "heritage site" under clause 17(4) should be widened to ensure that the significance of other non-listed historic buildings and built heritage is not overlooked. Over 70% of respondents to the informal survey were of the view that protecting historic or heritage buildings could sometimes limit a council's ability to order demolition.

I invite the witnesses to speak to clause 17.

Mr Allison: Clause 17 states:

The use of powers in the Bill to tackle dilapidation at an early stage in the case of heritage sites obviously precludes the need further down the line for an urgent works notice in the Planning Act, so we do not see a duplication; it is more of a complementary power.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Will you give me a clear definition of clause 17(4)? It states:

What does that mean?

Mr Allison: Basically, it means that, if something changes in that field down the line, we can amend the definition to include it as being a heritage site.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is that for specific cases?

Mr Allison: If there were a general change to "heritage site".

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The conditions of what pertains to be a heritage site or building?

Mr Allison: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. Would the clause benefit from an amendment to include clear emergency consultation procedures for listed or heritage sites?

Mr Webb: Clause 17(1) states:

with the planning department etc. We are mindful that there is not a notice per se with emergency action, so we would be happy to elaborate on that, perhaps in the guidance, to make it clear that there should be emergency consultation, provided that circumstances and timing permit.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There are issues in council planning departments at the moment anyway with normal business. I know that this is an ask from some people, but we have to balance the real-world availability of qualified staff —

Mr Webb: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): — to perform a function. That is probably something to keep a close eye on.

Do members have any other questions or queries about clause 17? OK.

We will move to clause 18, which is entitled "Power of entry". It was highlighted that the Planning Act provides that, where consent is refused, entry can be obtained from a lay magistrate. The rights engaged are article 8. The Committee should consider whether any interference with those rights is likely to be occasioned by the clause, and whether the mechanisms set out in the clause represent a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, the various aims being the inspection or examination of land or the carrying out of works.

Do members have any comments about clause 18?

Mr Allison: Shall I give an overview of the clause?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes.

Mr Allison: Under existing legislative provisions, council officials can exercise a range of powers of entry and inspection. Clause 18 provides for occasions where a council official:

for the purposes of the Bill. Various notice periods are provided for in the clause. They are pretty general, similar to section 98 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. There is no notice for emergency; 24 hours for examination only; and six days for any other purpose. There is also access by force, which is currently in article 72 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The clause also covers compensation and inserts the offence of obstructing an authorised officer, which carries the penalty of a £2,500 fine on summary conviction.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Power of entry is a substantive power. It crosses over, and has to be dealt with as sensitively as possible, but it is very much needed. We are getting a table of the carry-over legislation. Is there anything new or novel in the clause?

Mr Allison: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Has anything been raised in the past? Has there been any test of its efficacy or adherence to human rights, for instance? Have there been any such cases in the past?

Mr Allison: When the departmental solicitors scrutinised the Bill, they were fine with the power of entry. They had no issues with it at all in relation to human rights.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. It was stated that, if consent is refused, entry can be obtained from a lay magistrate. Is that extant anyway, or does it need to be in the Bill?

Mr Allison: That was a new one to us. Obviously, it is in the Planning Act, but I had never heard of it before.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Do you think that there is no need for it to appear here? Or is there any reason why it would not appear here, given that it is in the Planning Act? If the purpose is to bring together legislation that crosses over into one Bill, is that reasonable? It is an existing power.

Mr Allison: Yes, we can certainly have a look at it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you. Members, do you have any other questions on clause 18? No. Good.

Clause 19 is entitled "Fixed penalty". We have heard concerns that the fixed penalty amount is too low to act as an effective deterrent, and suggestions that there needs to be an option in the clause for repeat offenders, with those options being the issuing of a second fixed penalty or amending schedule 1 to proceed to court where there is non-compliance within a specified timescale after it has been paid. Approximately 70% of respondents to the informal survey did not consider the fixed penalty to be high enough to deter property neglect. Youth Assembly Members felt that the fines should be scaled, based on the site owner's resources and status.

Members, clause 19 may engage article 6, as the payment of a financial penalty is an alternative to the determination of criminal liability by a court. However, fixed penalty schemes are generally considered compatible with article 6 as they are voluntary alternatives to prosecution. A person issued with a fixed penalty notice can reject the penalty and retain their convention rights of access to court.

I have a couple of questions for you. What is the Department's view on including an option in the clause to deal with repeat offenders?

Mr Webb: Essentially, that is already factored into the Bill. The £500 fixed penalty discharges liability for conviction, as you said, but that is not in place of carrying out the works required in the notice. Therefore, there is an expectation that the works will still be carried out by the property owner who has paid the fixed penalty. If they remain in breach and have paid the fixed penalty, there will be the option for the council to issue a fresh notice and, with that, a fresh fixed penalty each time, should it be the case that the property owner continues to be in breach. We discussed that issue on Tuesday with representatives from NILGA and Building Control Northern Ireland. There may be an argument around the size and the amount of the fixed penalty, and we are certainly happy to consider that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Nobody has asked what "repeat offender" means. You have picked up that it could be where someone does not carry out the work. Another repeat offender could be someone who owns multiple properties. A lot of properties in our town centres are owned by a small number of people. A repeat offender could be someone who owns a number of properties and is subject to a number of notices and does not comply. Is that worth considering? You could have multiple instances of loss of amenity that, when added together in an area, for instance, constitutes a significant loss of amenity, based on the offender's being a multiple property owner. I am not even sure that that would stack up in law because each one would be a breach, but is that worthy of consideration?

Mr Webb: It would probably be quite an administrative burden for the councils to link up each property, given that each one could have its own individual circumstances. It may be that one has a dangerous structure notice on it and the other one has a maintenance notice. It would probably become quite an administrative challenge to tie those up. As it is currently worded, the Bill allows, as I said, a council to issue multiple notices on the same property and different types of notices on the same property and different properties over time. I think that it is fair to say that a property owner who is in breach can still be in receipt of significant penalties without necessarily joining up all their individual properties.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The £500 fine, for instance, could apply multiple times to the same property for different offences.

Mr Webb: Yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Potentially. That is another aspect of it. Thank you for that.

Finally, do you have any comments on what the Committee has heard in evidence about the fixed penalty amount's being too low to act as an effective deterrent? That view came up many times.

Ms Finnegan: I had the same question.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sorry.

Ms Finnegan: It is OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Pretend that I am Aoife. [Laughter.]

Mr Webb: I mentioned that the amount of the penalty has come up in discussions with NILGA and others. The fixed penalty is not meant to be the actual deterrent; it is a way of discharging liability for conviction. It is not a way of avoiding doing the necessary works. That having been said, the amount becomes relevant if councils find themselves in a scenario where they have to issue repeated fixed penalty notices. For the sake of argument, a larger penalty of £1000 will probably have to be issued fewer times than a £500 penalty before somebody takes action. The Department is not fixed on the amount; we are open to the possibility of the amount's being increased.

Mr McAleer: On the same theme, you are right: the £500 was highlighted as an incentive. During our evidence-gathering sessions, the importance of differentiating between a speculative developer and someone who has inherited a property in a dilapidated state and cannot afford to restore it was highlighted. The £500 might not be a lot to a big property developer who may be set to make millions or whatever, but someone who ends up with a dilapidated property may feel that it is more of a burden on them than an opportunity. Can the legislation differentiate between those two scenarios?

Mr Webb: We do not necessarily have to legislate explicitly for that scenario, but the Bill provides sufficient flexibility for councils to act on a case-by-case basis and look at the circumstances of each case. For argument's sake, if someone inherits a property and the council understands their individual circumstances, it may prefer to say, "Look, we'll put a charge on this property requiring works to be done in the future, as opposed to your carrying them out now". That is one option that will be open to the council. In that case, there would be no penalty for the person who happened to inherit the property, whereas, in the case of the speculative developer, the council may say, "You've been holding onto this site for quite some time. You haven't been developing it. You've left it in a poor state, and we are going to take action".

Mr McAleer: Thank you.

Miss McIlveen: On your response to that point, the issue of flexibility from council to council has been a repeated concern for the Committee. Given council boundaries, there could be a completely different approach to a property across the road from another. I am raising the point about flexibility with you again.

Mr Webb: I appreciate that. We agree with the Committee and councils that a balance must be struck between flexibility and achieving a degree of consistency. We have spoken to local government representatives, and we will consider options as to how greater consistency might be achieved.

Miss McIlveen: I am not clear about whether consistency is required in the Bill, as opposed to in guidance or conversations. Again, it is open to interpretation.

Mr Webb: The Department's preference is for it to be addressed in statutory guidance. That issue came up on Tuesday in the discussions. As we said, we are happy to work with the councils on that matter in the coming weeks to put in place the greater clarity that councils feel that they need.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Can I ask wee question about measuring the efficacy of the Dilapidation Bill in the future? Whilst the powers are conferred to councils to collaborate, cooperate and get the fixes, the Department will own the Bill. What will measurement look like in the long term? Is there a test that you can point to in guidance, or is there something that we need to help to develop to monitor, review and improve the legislation?

Mr Webb: The original intention was, potentially, to require councils to carry out surveys of their district to establish how many properties might fall under each notice and identify the scale of the problem, but that would have imposed a statutory duty on the councils and would have included a sizeable price tag. As things stand, reviewing the Bill would be subject to the normal post-review procedures, with a team revisiting the subject in two to three years' time, reaching out to councils and establishing how things are going at that point.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is a question, not for you guys but to be raised with NILGA, about the baseline for the current assessment of dilapidated buildings and the impact of amenity on land. It is for NILGA to see whether we can get a baseline. We do not know what the baseline is, so it is really hard to measure improvement.

Mr Webb: We have an older report by Ulster University that attempted to put figures on the issue, including the number of properties that would fall within the regime and ballpark figures for the remediation costs. We have some feel for it by way of that report, but it was a desk-based exercise; it did not give a specific list of properties.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Technology has probably moved on a great deal. As you said, a desktop exercise has some value, but we have the Google drive-bys now.

Do members have any other questions on that?

Mr Wilson: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. We will move on and look at clause 20, which is "Guidance". No issues were raised in the survey, as the guidance was not available at that time. However, we have since seen a draft of the guidance, and it has also been shared with the councils for their comments. I am sure that the councils aired their concerns at the round table with officials on Tuesday or will do so at next week's meeting.

Will you share any feedback received from the councils specifically on the guidance, given that it was not available to us when the public survey went out?

Mr Allison: We discussed the guidance and clarified with councils that it would be statutory guidance, which means that it would be available in front of a judge. We said that a lot of their concerns, which we have gone through, could be addressed by amending the guidance. We talked about matrices that we could put in to tie down things such as definitions and when they would act. They were happy that we could work together to get the guidance as tight as we could.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Excellent. I suppose that you cannot future-proof it, but, procedurally, for the guidance to be agile enough, changes to it would be subject to draft affirmative resolution.

Mr Allison: Yes. A draft would have to be laid before the Assembly.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. As members have no other questions on that one, I will bring the discussion on clauses 16 to 20 to a conclusion. If further information is needed from the Department, please let me know. Further discussions can and will take place at meetings next week and beyond until we conclude our deliberations. I reiterate that we are not closing it out, just closing it for today.

We will now look at clauses 21 to 23, which are "General procedural matters etc". No comments were made on clause 21, "Notices", or clause 22, "Appeal". Simon and Mark, will you give us a briefing on clause 21 first, please?

Mr Allison: Clause 21 is a general provision that provides for issues relating to notices issued by councils, such as when they take effect, their variation and their withdrawal. We point out that any notices in relation to urgent works under clause 10 or clause 11, which is the "Defective premises" clause, may not be varied or withdrawn, as they obviously relate to works requiring relatively rapid remediation and will therefore not be subject to variation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Can that be described as a common-sense approach to notices, in that varying degrees of danger are reflected to guard against unnecessary pressure, but the failure to comply with a notice is still up to a council to decide, whether that is through planning or building control, and the fine still sits as a deterrent for non-compliance?

Does anybody have any other queries?

Mr McAleer: That came up in the evidence-gathering as well. Different councils have different local development plans, with differing emphases. Is there a means whereby we can ensure consistency across councils in relation to that?

Mr Allison: Again, we will try to tighten the guidance and make sure, in collaboration with the councils, that they are going to be supplying us with what they currently use to determine those sorts of things. Belfast City Council mentioned its matrix. We can tie all that in and try to ensure that, as far as possible, all councils are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Mr Wilson: On the subject of notices, I know that, for example, in an instance where a vehicle is abandoned, the council places a visual notice on the vehicle. It is very clear to residents or any passer-by in a built-up area that the council has clocked the vehicle or item and has specified a period within which the matter must be dealt. Is there any intention in the Bill to do something similar? A building is very visible, and most incidents of that kind occur in built-up areas. Is there potential to have some type of visual indicator placed on a building to indicate that it is now under notice?

Mr Allison: Certainly, under the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, the serving of a notice can be done by affixing it to the building.

Mr Wilson: It might not be the worst thing to do. The public and the owner will know about it. We have scores on the doors for restaurants and everything else. Those are really visual indicators that, particularly from a health perspective, the council is taking an interest in those situations.

Mr Allison: Absolutely.

Mr Wilson: It might not always be the case but usually, in any circumstances that I have dealt with where there is dilapidation, there has been an unwillingness by an owner to address it. Is this another way to put a footprint on that to let them know that we are on their case?

Mr Allison: Certainly, the council has the ability to affix a notice to a building or to put something on the building.

Mr Wilson: Does that clause allow that to be the case?

Mr Allison: The Interpretation Act would cover that.

Mr Webb: On that point, the draft statutory guidance mentions the ripple effect, which is reported for properties in England, where maintenance notices have been issued. If a property is served with a maintenance notice, other property owners in the area become aware of that through word-of-mouth conversations with neighbours. They will often take action on their own property before a notice is even served because they are aware of what has happened to their neighbour.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do you have anything to mention in relation to clause 22?

Mr Allison: Clause 22 is a general appeal clause, which provides that when a notice is served and someone appeals, the clock stops. However, that will not be the case for emergency work; there will be no stopping of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is it new, or is it a carryover from current practice?

Mr Allison: It is a general clause. We have had to put in the bits about the emergency work.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes; it does not apply [Inaudible.]

OK, that makes sense.

As regards clause 23, it was suggested that a daily fine should be introduced for repeat offenders, as is the case under article 66 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Do you have a view on that, as one of the concerns that was raised?

Mr Webb: We certainly are aware of the power under article 66 of the 1978 Order. However, we have contacted the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service on two occasions now, in order to verify that it does not administer daily fines. Although that power exists, the Courts and Tribunals Service does not currently use it, nor does it administer fines.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It has not been repealed; it is just not used in practice.

Mr Webb: Yes, indeed.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is a bit of interest, obviously, in repeat offenders. I was not looking for a definition of that, but do you not think that it would be useful to define that? If it is on the statute book —?

Mr Webb: It would be potentially useful, if there were to be administration on the part of the Courts and Tribunals Service, but we are very much advised that that will not be the case.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We cannot compel courts, obviously.

Mr Webb: We would obviously rely on the situation that was referred to earlier, where there are continued breaches of a notice. Fresh notices can be served and fixed penalties and fines associated with each new notice.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK, members, are there any further queries with regard to that one at this stage? We can return to it. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you.

We will bring clauses 20 to 23 to a conclusion for today's business. If there is any further information needed from the Department, we can request that, and you can let me know. Further discussion can take place at our next meeting. This is a quick meeting.

We now turn to clauses 24 and 25. I will read this in before you give us a bit of an overview. Clause 24, "Meaning of 'interested person' etc." Clause 24(2) should include receivers for the company that formerly had an interest in or ownership of the land.

That was really the only thing that was offered in regard to clause 24 in particular. Would you like to give us the overview please?

Mr Allison: Yes. Clause 24 is fairly self-explanatory. We wanted to make sure that the definition of an "interested person" is as broad as possible. On the comment about the receivers, we consider that the current definition of someone who has a charge on the land, over another financial interest in it, would be considered sufficient, on the basis that a receiver acts in the best interests of the creditors who have a financial interest in the land.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I see that my friends, the trustees, get a wee mention in this one, specifically.

OK. I do not have any further questions on this one. Has anyone else a question on this?

Well, there is this one. What about the piece that I read in? Should the clause include receivers for the company that formerly had an interest in or ownership of the land?

Mr Allison: I have just addressed that point.

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

We move on to clause 25, which is "Other definitions". It was suggested that the phrase "'Building' includes any other structure" is too broad as it could be applied, for instance, to Crown buildings, lamp posts, railway gates, which are already controlled under other legislation.

Another point was that DFI Planning highlights that, from a planning perspective, there is an overlap with the definition of "building" provided at clause 25 in this Bill and that provided at section 250 of the 2011 Planning Act, which on the surface appears mutually inclusive. Do you think that there is an overlap? Is it concerning, and have you considered it? Is there any further overview that you would like to do with regard to clause 25?

Mr Allison: We did not consider that the phrase, "'Building' includes any other structure" was too broad because Crown buildings would be disapplied anyway. The definition is very similar to the one in the Building Act 1984, as well as the Planning Act. The meanings are very similar, but it is probably more convenient to have the definition laid out in the Act that it is talking about, rather than having the legislation saying, "'Building' refers to section x of the Planning Act," and then you have to go and look up other legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I agree. Is the definition substantively different from any other definition in any other piece of legislation?

Mr Allison: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Well, that is good.

Are there any other questions on clause 25, members? No? I bring today's discussions on clauses 24 and 25 to a conclusion. If there is further information needed from the Department, please let us know. Further discussion can take place at next week's meeting or subsequent meetings.

I turn to clauses 26 to 28. Before you give me the overview, I will read to members the following general comments that were made about clauses 26 to 28. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and NILGA highlight that there are elements of the legislation, albeit imperfect, that it is proposed to repeal, and that are absent from this new Bill.

We spoke to you before about the volume of legislation that may need to be repealed, which probably triggered that piece about it being new or novel and whether it has any impact on the repeals. Can you give us an overview of the gaps that have been identified in the process for repeal or revocation and confidence that the legislation will take effect and there will be no gap?

Mr Allison: Yes. I am not sure whether you have had sight of the table yet. It only went out on Monday or Tuesday of this week from the private office. We have laid out the repeals and set out where they are in the new legislation. We went over it again on Tuesday with NILGA. We specifically asked NILGA to tell us what power it was talking about, but we did not really —. It was more of a general, "You are getting rid of this, and we need it" sort of thing. However, we are confident at the minute that any legislation being repealed is carried forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, I think of "repealed" as being modernised and tidied up. That will be reflected but there will be no gaps in the timeline. You will imagine the process for repealing the legislation and —.

Mr Allison: The repeals will come in when the Act comes in.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): They basically fall as part of the Bill's structure.

Mr Allison: Yes. We are shooting forward here, but we initially made the commencement clause the appointed day procedure. That was to do with what Simon referred to earlier: the survey that we thought the councils were originally going to carry out has now been removed, so it may be that we commence the whole Act the day after Royal Assent.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Just to confirm, we do not have that updated table yet. Hopefully, we will have it next week. I think that you said that it was issued at the start of the week.

Mr Allison: It was, I think, Monday or Tuesday.

The Senior Assistant Assembly Clerk: Chair, sorry, I was looking: it has just arrived. [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You are on your phone there. [Inaudible.] [Laughter.]

Just for the record, for Hansard, it was sent at 11:40 am. No problem. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Members, are there any other questions in regard to clauses 26 to 28? OK, thank you, members.

Before we move to the overview of clauses 29 to 31 that cover the general interpretation, commencement and short title, as Mark referred to, there were no comments made in relation to clauses 29 to 31. Let me just me peel through my papers here. Mark, do you want to give us an overview before we get to questions on clauses 29 to 31?

Mr Allison: Clause 29, the general interpretation clause, contains the meaning of "Department" and "statutory provision". That is a fairly straightforward clause. As I already mentioned, we may come back to the commencement clause and enable the Act to come into operation on the day after Royal Assent, just so that we do not have to make commencement orders for no reason. The short title is self-explanatory.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): On the commencement piece, and maybe just going back one wee step: you have engaged with NILGA, and we have had witnesses in, the legislation takes effect —. Are you doing any work with the local councils in the broader sense, through the different stakeholders, including elected representatives, on the awareness of the new Bill, so that there is an overt awareness? It will be a council's responsibility, but you guys obviously have a role to play in that. Has any programme been put together to create that awareness and work through how the Act will be applied in real life?

Mr Allison: Yes. When the Bill received Executive approval, the Minister was keen that press releases were sent out to alert the public that it was on the way, and again when it was introduced, so I imagine that, as we go through the different stages, there will be some sort of publicity campaign, whatever form it takes, before the Act comes into effect.

Mr Webb: We will meet the Minister in late March, so those issues will probably come up in that discussion.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. From the very outset, communication was something that I raised and that the Committee was interested in. It is about not overselling or underselling what the Act will do and ensuring that people have information on, and are aware of, any new provisions; and also, that the professionals applying the legislation are aware of the repealed provisions. That is grand. We would like to be kept aware of how that is rolling out.

Do members have any queries or questions about clauses 29 to 31? If not, we will bring the discussion on them to a conclusion for today. If any further information is needed from the Department, please alert us. Further discussions can take place at next week's meeting or further sessions.

We will now get a brief overview of schedule 1, which is on fixed penalties. Before officials give us a bit of an overview, I will read out for members the concerns that were raised:

Councils raised the point that paragraph 10 of schedule 1 states that receipts for fixed penalties could, by amendment of the regulations, be accrued by other persons, including the Department, and that, unless the Department provides financial support to assist with enforcement of the Bill, councils cannot see any justifiable reason for the Department's being able to amend the regulations to accrue fixed penalty receipts. They therefore recommend that the provision be omitted from the Bill. Do you want to address those two issues, please?

Mr Webb: Just to be clear, the first issue is about the amount of the penalty.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes.

Mr Webb: As mentioned, the Department is open to the penalty potentially being set at a higher level, but it reminds councils that the penalty is meant to be a deterrent to those who are avoiding doing such works. Paying the penalty does not replace the need to carry out works.

The paragraph on the accrual of receipts from fixed penalties is a standard paragraph. It is not the Department's intention to regulate in order to take receipt of those. It is very much the Department's position that those receipts should go to councils to assist with the costs of administering the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. We will probably pick that up again with the councils to see how tied they are to that provision being there. They were reasonably robust in trying to see whether it could be omitted from the Bill. We can work with you on that to see whether we can get further assurances on it. Are members content? Are there any questions on schedule 1?

Finally, Simon and Mark, will you give an overview of schedule 2? Members, no comments were made on schedule 2.

Mr Allison: Schedule 2 sets out the repeals. We have set out in the table each section of the old Acts: what they are, what they do, where they are replicated in the Bill, and if they are not replicated, why not. One or two are obsolete. One mentions removing people to the Belfast workhouse, so I do not think that we can keep that in.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The good old days.

OK. Members, are there any questions or queries about that? We can come back to it. I will bring the discussion on schedules 1 and 2 to a conclusion. If any further information is needed from the Department, please alert us through the Clerk. Further discussion can take place at next week's meeting.

That was a useful session. Thank you for your attendance. I am sure that you will be back next week to walk us through the next stage. Thank you very much.