This report was not approved formally by the Committee prior to the suspension of the Assembly on 14 October 2002, but is published by order of the Speaker.
Committee for Social Development
Thursday 19 September 2002
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Housing Bill:
Committee Stage
(NIA 24/01)
Members present:
Mr Cobain (Chairperson)
Mr G Kelly (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Hamilton
Mr B Hutchinson
Mrs Nelis
Mr M Robinson
Mr S Wilson
Witnesses:
Mr G Davidson ) Department
Mr S Carson ) for Social
Mr M O’Connor ) Development
Ms A Montgomery ) Assembly Research and Library Services
The Chairperson: The Committee welcomes Mr George Davidson, Mr Scott Carson and Mr Michael O’Connor from the Department for Social Development. The purpose of this meeting is to continue the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing Bill. Members should read the relevant clauses and paragraphs in the Bill in association with the related commentary in the explanatory and financial memorandum and other supporting papers.
Where it is evident that we must explore a clause in detail because of our concerns, or suggested amendments, we will not dwell on it today but return to it in due course. The Committee will have two options: to agree that it is content with the clause as drafted or to defer a decision. Before making such decisions, Members may also wish to seek clarification about a clause by speaking through me. I will then invite the officials to comment.
Mr B Hutchinson: Before we start our discussions I would like to make a general point. Earlier this week, I said that in Britain this matter was subject to consultation, because the legislation did not work. I was told that it was in order and have since found out that it is not. Housing legislation was introduced that definitely did not work.
We are dealing with legislation from 1996. It will be 2004 or 2005 before the Bill comes into force, by which time the legislation will be at least 10 years old. Legislation that is a decade old is of no use to us, and we must think about doing things differently. I would like the matter clarified before we get into discussions on the clauses. I was told that the anti-social behaviour orders did not work. I checked this out and have been assured by Labour MPs that the orders applied to people who misbehaved in the streets and town centres. The legislation related to housing, but it does not work, and these orders have now gone out to consultation. I would like a comment on that.
Mr Davidson: Earlier this week it was suggested that anti-social behaviour orders, which operate in local authority areas in England, may be an issue here. It is recognised that several areas of that legislation do not work as well as anticipated. For example, injunctions that stop people engaging in certain activities are a torturous route, but they are a well-tried instrument for preventing some sorts of behaviour. These are not legislative orders, but orders to prevent anti-social behaviour. We could have included them in the Housing Bill but have not yet done so. It is correct to say that in the rest of the United Kingdom they have not been as successful or as widely used as they might have been. We do not intend to introduce anti-social behaviour orders here; rather we mean to extend the conditions under which injunctions may be sought.
Mr B Hutchinson: My understanding is that the Bill contains legislation that was lifted directly from the Housing Act 1996. Furthermore, the British Government have now commissioned further consultation, because that legislation did not work. Is that correct?
Ms Montgomery: Mr Hutchinson may be referring to the consultation paper on tackling anti-social tenants, which was released in April 2002. The consultation seeks to review provisions in the Housing Act 1996. The information that the Assembly Research and Library service has gleaned suggests that the British Government want to review the proposals that came into operation. They are considering mediation services and widening their approach to anti-social behaviour. They are reviewing the legislation because many of the issues have not been resolved.
Mr Davidson: That is possible, but we do not know what the outcome of the consultation will be. It may be so radically different from the Housing Bill that we must change the Bill. It is only at consultation in England at present.
Ms Montgomery: If the legislation is working effectively there would be no need for further consultation
The Chairperson: We can return to this matter when we reach the relevant clauses. The Committee would like the researchers to give us some additional information.
Clause 22 (Meaning of "harm")
The Chairperson: The Equality Commission suggested two amendments to make it clear that racial harassment or abuse constitutes ill treatment. It takes account of the definition of racial incidents contained in the MacPherson report. Is the Committee happy with that?
Mr G Kelly: Is it correct that we will defer any clause to which an amendment has been tabled?
Mr B Hutchinson: Can we try to agree on it?
Mr S Wilson: The Bill starts to elaborate on what is meant by the word "harm". I could be wrong, but my understanding is that language in a Bill is meant to be as embracing as possible. If one definition of "harm" or "ill-treatment" is specified, must all the other definitions be similarly specified? Does the language used in the Bill not encompass all those things?
The Chairperson: Rather than discuss the amendments to clauses, we will go through the Bill, mark off the clauses to which no amendments have been tabled and then return to the amendments.
Mr S Wilson: My question was directed at the departmental officials. You asked for our views, and I wish to know whether the language in the Bill was meant to be all-embracing.
The Chairperson: We shall return to that. We will go through the Bill, put to the side the clauses that are non-contentious, and return to those that are.
Clause 22 referred for further consideration.
Clause 23 referred for further consideration.
Clause 24 agreed to.
The Chairperson: We now move to the section of the Bill dealing with grants, clauses 25 to 79. The Committee’s position on moving from mandatory to discretionary grants for more effective targeting is on record and is contained in the Committee’s first report into housing published in October 2001. It would be helpful if officials could outline precisely which grants fall into that category. For example, are renovation grants and replacement grants included in this clause?
Mr Davidson: The following grants are covered by this clause — renovation grant, disabled facilities grant, grant for houses in multiple occupation, common parts grant, group repair grant and home repair assistance, which will replace the present minor works assistance grant. The replacement grant is affected by this clause, but it is not replicated in the Bill because that would have duplicated many of the clauses that already apply to renovation grants. A replacement grant is simply one of the options available if a renovation grant is not feasible — for example, if the house were likely to fall down during renovations. That is the only reason that it is not in the Bill.
Mr G Kelly: Are you statutorily required to explain each clause?
The Chairperson: The proceedings are being recorded in Hansard for public record, so the Bill must be explained clause by clause. It would be easier for me not to do it, but the Committee Clerk is punishing us for whatever we have done to him over the past four years.
The Committee Clerk: An organisation may propose one or more amendments to a clause.
Mr G Kelly: To clauses that deal with grants?
The Committee Clerk: Yes; to mandatory grants.
The Chairperson: A long list of amendments has been drawn up for almost every clause, and the Department is aware of them.
Mr Carson: The Department has received no amendments to many of those clauses other than a very general one; say, for example, if someone disagreed with a mandatory scheme. That could be applied to most clauses.
The Committee Clerk: Most clauses, but not all of them. Amendments have been suggested to some of the clauses.
Mr Carson: Other amendments have been suggested to a few clauses. We are prepared to discuss those with you.
The Chairperson: We have several amendments in addition to those dealing with mandatory grants.
The Committee Clerk: The amendments are mostly to clauses up to the mid-30s. There is the occasional amendment beyond that, and one has been shared with the Department. It would help the Committee if the Department said to what extent it could accommodate some of the amendments. The Department could also speak about the mandatory one, if only to say that it is not prepared to return to it. That may be a solution for the grants section.
Mr Carson: Do you want us to respond to that now?
Mr B Hutchinson: A response from the officials might help us to decide what to do.
The Chairperson: Do you want a written response, Mr Hutchinson?
Mr B Hutchinson: I want to hear what Mr Davidson has to say.
Mr Davidson: Most correspondents and the Committee favour a discretionary grant scheme, as does the Housing Executive, which would administer the scheme. The Housing Executive thinks that a discretionary scheme would allow it more flexibility when targeting resources. The Department favours a discretionary scheme with a mandatory disabled facilities grant, which is included in the Bill.
The Chairperson: Will the Department provide written responses to some of the other amendments to the first 30 clauses?
The Committee Clerk: To the first 10 clauses of the grants section.
The Chairperson: Do the officials have them?
Mr Davidson: The Department has the responses from the consultation. They have been analysed, and the Department will describe its position on them.
The Chairperson: Will the Department write to the Committee about the responses?
Mr Davidson: If the Committee sends the Department the articles on which it wants a response, apart from the all-embracing discretionary/mandatory matter, we will give our response.
The Chairperson: Thank you.
Mr B Hutchinson: I am a little confused by that point. My understanding is that Mr Davidson already has some responses. Can we not sort out the first 10 clauses now?
The Chairperson: The Committee can return to the issue, because there are only six minutes left of this meeting.
Mr S Wilson: Will the Chairperson clarify how the Committee is dealing with the matter? Are the departmental officials here to hear the Committee agree the clauses?
The Chairperson: No. The officials came to supply information. However, the structure of the meetings was agreed. If there are any amendments, the Committee will refer them for further consideration.
Mr S Wilson: If the officials write to say that the Department disagrees with an amendment, will the Committee have an opportunity to question them about their decision?
The Chairperson: The information must be in writing so that the Committee can read why the Department disagrees and has time to absorb the information. What can we achieve in the remaining five minutes? Mr Davidson would only be introducing an issue when we would have to call it quits. The meeting is time-restricted. It was supposed to start at 2.00 pm, but it did not start until 2.30 pm. It is due to finish at 3.15 pm, and it is now 3.10 pm.
The Committee Clerk: May I remind the Committee of the procedure that it agreed. It was to discuss clauses 1 to 150 to identify those that presented no difficulties so that it could return to the contentious clauses, particularly if there were amendments. The examination of the more difficult clauses will start the week after next, once the Committee has completed its first read through of the Bill. Officials will be present to inform the Committee of the Department’s position and to clarify certain points; they will help the Committee to make decisions about whether it agrees with the Department’s position or wants to go in a different direction.
Mr Davidson: The Department will not say that it disagrees with an amendment. It will state its position in view of what some of the consultees said. In some cases, the Department will not disagree with what the consultees want; it may merely be a case of pointing out that some of the provisions that they requested may already be in the legislation.
Mrs Nelis: Many of the clauses were deferred today because of the mandatory/discretionary issue. There are so many amendments stating that grants should be mandatory because discretionary grants are problematic in that they do not confer people’s rights to a grant. That raises the issue of people’s rightful entitlement.
The Chairperson: The Committee has already decided that it will support discretionary grants. We have had that debate.
Mr B Hutchinson: I would like some clarification. My understanding was that we would deal with the Housing Bill in the same way that we dealt with the Street Trading Bill. I assume that we will get to that stage, but at a later date.
The Committee Clerk: Absolutely. It will probably be the week after next. The Committee will have two opportunities next week to scrutinise clause 80 through to the schedules, and then we will return to the Bill in more detail.
Mr B Hutchinson: I was concerned that we would do this with pieces of paper rather than argue the case across the table.
The Chairperson: It is important that we have explanations. It is important that the Department write to us about what we have agreed and the reasons for doing so.
Mr B Hutchinson: My concern was that there would be no interaction between the Committee and the Department.
The Chairperson: It is important that we have the Department’s views in writing; the Committee can then discuss them before making its decisions. It is important that we have as much information as possible.
Mr Carson: It would have been useful to have discussed the mandatory/discretionary issue at the beginning. It might have enabled the Committee to get rid of most —
The Chairperson: The Committee has already decided in favour of discretionary grants.
Mr Carson: It would have saved referring all the clauses for further consideration, and the Committee would not have to revisit them all again.
The Chairperson: I know. However, the Committee agreed a structure. As I said at the start, some Committee members may be opposed to discretionary grants, and they must be allowed to make their point. However, the Committee’s overall view is in our report — it is in favour of discretionary grants. Mrs Nelis may have difficulty with that, and she may wish to speak on that issue. That is better than killing it off. Once we have decided on a structure we should stick with it, otherwise we get into all sorts of problems.
Mr Davidson: Officials should agree with Stephen Graham the clauses that have been deferred because of the discretionary/mandatory issue. We can set those aside and agree the clauses on which you would like further information from the Department. How soon do you wish to go over those?
The Chairperson: We will go back over them in about a fortnight. We are meeting on Tuesday and Thursday of next week, so perhaps the week after next will suit us.
The Committee Clerk: I can send a letter to the Department listing the clauses that were deferred for reasons other than the discretionary/mandatory issue.
The Chairperson: Thank you for your attendance and for your help.
Clauses 25 to 79 referred for further consideration.