I cannot tell the Member, off the top of my head, the number of outstanding applications that exist at present, but I will reply in writing.

With reference to the application that she mentioned, a reply was received from the developer's agents on 25 October 2000, which stated that an application would be lodged in the near future. A planning application was received on 15 January 2001. It was advertised in the local press on 1 February 2001, and neighbour notification was also carried out. No written objections were received at that time, and the application is still under consideration. The delay in bringing that case to a conclusion has resulted from a dispute over the levels of traffic using the site. Additional information regarding traffic levels was sought from the agent in May 2001, and it was not received until 27 July 2001. Further information about traffic levels was sent to the divisional planning office towards the end of October. The Department for Regional Development's Road Service advises my Department on such matters, and we are currently waiting for their final advice on the reason for the delay.

Does the Minister not agree that the whole issue of planning is one that causes general concern? I cannot think of any Question Time where a Member from some party has not expressed concern at the frustration experienced by objectors, or by applicants, at the delay in dealing with planning applications. First, will the Minister tell us whether the planning process and the process of dealing with an application has sped up or slowed down, on average, since the ending of direct rule?

Secondly, what plans are there to improve the performance of the Planning Service in dealing with planning applications, which is one of the chief impediments to promoting economic growth in Northern Ireland?

I assure the Member that, as an ex- councillor, I am au fait with the trouble that people seem to have. I was then on the outside looking in, but now that I am poacher-turned-gamekeeper I realise that being on the inside is not particularly easy. We were under-resourced and under-financed in different ways. Some improvements have been made in that direction. Things are beginning to move, and the backlog has been considerably reduced. However, many planning applications issues are not black and white, as I am sure the Member is aware.

Different addressees must be contended with and different issues must be looked at. I assure the Member and the House that our planning department looks at those issues conscientiously, because the planning department's decisions must be objective and be able to stand up to future scrutiny, whether from the Public Accounts Committee or judicial review. We are not resting on our laurels.

I propose to strengthen my Department's enforcement powers via the forthcoming planning amendment Bill, which will include breach of condition notices to streamline the enforcement procedure for breaches of conditions attached to a planning permission. There are many issues with which to contend. As I have said, we are working on the planning amendment Bill. Other issues will be addressed, but I assure the Member that the Department is doing its best under difficult circumstances. Many issues flood into the Department that slow up, rather than encourage, the pace of the system.

Will the planning amendment Bill provide any new enforcement powers?

As I said in answer to the previous question, I propose to strengthen the Department's enforcement powers in the planning amendment Bill. Those powers will include breach of condition notices to streamline the enforcement procedure for breaches of conditions attached to a planning permission.

I also propose to address penalties imposed by the courts and the need for the courts to have regard to the financial gain from any offence. I also propose to amend the law to enable the Department to apply directly to the High Court to serve an injunction, rather than through the Attorney-General, as is the present case. That would simplify and streamline the process of serving an injunction.

I assure the House that the Department wants to service the community - it does not want to inhibit, stultify or stifle development. My Department deals very well with the many parameters with which it must contend. I compliment my staff on their tremendous work.

Question 10 stands in the name of Mr Douglas. As he is not in the Chamber, we shall move on.

TOP

First Report of the Inquiry into Housing in Northern Ireland

I beg to move

As Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development, I am pleased to bring the report to the Assembly's attention. Members will agree that to have somewhere decent to live is one of the most basic human rights in society. We must uphold and respect that right. As elected representatives, we cannot and should not simply pay lip service to it. We must ensure that there continues to be an adequate supply of social housing.

I shall begin by explaining why the Committee felt it necessary to conduct the inquiry. I shall then outline how the Committee went about its work, before turning to the main body of the report and its recommendations.

Members will know that the present and former Ministers for Social Development have long signalled their intentions to bring a housing Bill before the Assembly. Indeed, a housing Bill was in the legislative programme for the previous Assembly session of 2000-01, but it was not brought forward.

As far back as September 2000 the Committee for Social Development was told by the former Minister and his officials that the legislative proposals would be based on a comprehensive policy review which was carried out in 1996. The Committee was led to understand that the Minister would bring forward legislative provisions to cover such matters as travellers' sites, houses in multiple occupation, regulation of the private rented sector, appointments to the board of the Housing Executive, the private sector renewal grant scheme, rights of housing association tenants, qualifying shorthold tenancies, the sale of housing association land portfolio, housing association rents, the rights of Housing Executive tenants, homelessness, the house allocation scheme, antisocial behaviour, large-scale voluntary transfer, land acquisition for amenity purposes, emergency grants and the home insulation grant scheme.

No one could disagree that the list was impressive, but the Committee wondered if the Department was up to the challenge or if it had perhaps been a little too ambitious. With no sign of the Bill by January 2001, the Committee took the initiative and conducted an inquiry on the understanding that Members would get a deeper insight into the complexities of housing issues and a broader understanding of the views of interested groups and that there would be a sound basis on which to carry out the Committee Stage of the Bill if and when it did arrive.

The Committee decided on a three-phase approach, concentrating on six main issues. Members agreed that private sector renewal, houses in multiple occupation, regulation of the private rented sector, large-scale voluntary transfer, the role of the Housing Executive and the right to buy for housing association tenants should form the basis of its first report. There will be two further reports on antisocial behaviour in public sector housing estates and homelessness.

The report before Members is a product of the combined efforts of the Committee, its special adviser Paddy Gray of the University of Ulster and the Committee staff, all of whom stuck to the task despite interruptions by the local and general elections and an enforced but very welcome summer break. Our sessions were conducted professionally but with a wry good humour and a sense that we were dealing with matters which affect people who rely on us as politicians to reach the best decisions to ensure that they can enjoy a decent, affordable and safe standard of housing.

However, that does not tell the whole story. For a long time housing has been an emotive and highly politicised issue in Northern Ireland. Everyone has a view on it. I want it put it on record that the Committee was unanimous in its praise of the work of the Housing Executive since its establishment in 1971. The Housing Executive has been a dominant force in Northern Ireland over the last 30 years, and it is right that its achievements during that unstable period should be celebrated. However, it would be the first to recognise the need to consider change.

One question before the Committee was whether it is right to change for change's sake or because things have changed elsewhere. The Committee decided to make a comparative analysis with other regions as well as to examine what was happening here. We looked at the direction taken recently by housing in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. We also consulted widely. Written submissions and oral evidence reinforced the need to learn from others without necessarily following in their footsteps. For that reason the Committee is grateful to everyone who took time to make submissions. Members found the comments received extremely helpful and felt it right to recognise the importance of that evidence by publishing it as part of the report.

Before I turn to our recommendations, I want to make it clear that the views expressed are those of the whole Committee and based on the premise that there should be local solutions to local problems.

I also want to stress that the report does not pretend to offer definitive answers to the housing problems or the difficulties that we face. It is more about stimulating debate and offering potential ideas, some of which will need further investigation. For that reason, the Committee will pay a great deal of attention to reactions to the report. The views expressed will further inform and influence the Committee when it scrutinises the housing Bill.

It is right, at this stage, to say that the Committee is encouraged by the fact that the Minister for Social Development has decided that it would be unwise to proceed solely on the basis of a policy review that is more than five years old. His intention to consult on the proposed housing Bill before it is brought to the Assembly is welcome. I hope that, later in the debate, he will tell the House how he proposes to go about that task.

Section 1 of the report lists the Committee's four principal recommendations. The first relates to the renewal of private sector housing, which is dealt with in greater detail in section 4. Essentially, the Committee favours the introduction of a largely discretionary grant scheme to allow for finer targeting to help people who live in poor housing conditions. The Committee also lists further ideas that might merit consideration, and other Members may want to comment on them.

The second recommendation focuses on the regulation of the private rented sector and houses of multiple occupation. An estimated 30,000 people live in houses of multiple occupation in Northern Ireland. Most of those properties are associated with student use and are located in close proximity to the main centres of third-level education in Belfast, Londonderry, Portrush and Portstewart. They fulfil a vital role in the housing market by offering affordable, flexible accommodation. It is the Committee's view that that sector should be managed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and that a licensing scheme should be introduced and operated by it. The Committee favours a mandatory licensing scheme but accepts that a voluntary arrangement should proceed as soon as possible.

The Committee also welcomes the review of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. Section 5 of the report includes further suggestions about how regulation of the private rented sector may operate in practice.

The Committee's third recommendation concerns the right of housing association tenants to buy their homes. It believes that the statutory right to buy should be extended to include housing association tenants. It is strongly in favour of a review of the scheme and welcomes the action already undertaken by the Housing Executive. Section 6 of the report highlights the importance of a fair scheme and discusses some ground rules that might apply.

The fourth and main recommendation addresses what many regard to be the biggest housing question facing Northern Ireland. I have already made reference to the future role of the Housing Executive and some of the functions that it may carry out. What does the future hold for it? A large-scale voluntary transfer, and some might say the disposal, of the public sector housing stock to an existing or newly registered social landlord would bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Is that what we need or want? The Minister for Social Development indicated that large- scale voluntary transfer, and by implication the future of the Housing Executive, is on the menu for the housing Bill. The Committee welcomes that.

Decisions must be taken about the role that the Housing Executive should have, but do we need to pursue a policy of large-scale voluntary transfer? The Committee thinks not. It is the Committee's view that there should be a single, strong, strategic housing authority which builds on the successes of the past 30 years, an authority that invested public money wisely and is held in high regard in Europe for its unprecedented achievements. It should be allowed to secure that investment so that it is not lost to Northern Ireland and especially to those who rely on social housing for the well-being of their families. It should be able to rely on future funding to cement the investment that was made in the past.

The Committee thinks that the forthcoming housing Bill must be clear about the future role of the Housing Executive. It must not be ignored, overlooked, or put on the long finger. The Bill represents the opportunity to plot a way forward for social housing provision for this and future generations.

Like any politician, I will not pass on the opportunity to stray from the issue at hand. I stray slightly, but the matter is relevant to the subject before us. Any homeowner knows about the value of regular maintenance and the need for regular investment. We do not need to be reminded that years of neglect and underinvestment in public transport have resulted in the need for a massive injection of public sector funding. It would be to our eternal shame, if we were to allow our social housing stock to go the same way. For that reason, I cannot lose the opportunity to remind Ministers from all parties that they must be clear about the continuing need for funding of our social housing stock. I commend the report to the Assembly and look forward to contributions from other Members.

Many Members wish to speak in the debate, so the time for presentations will be restricted to five minutes.

The Chairperson of the Social Development Committee has clearly outlined the work that it undertook. Housing is one of those issues with a dynamic of its own - it changes, and in some cases it changes rapidly. In order to manage the issue and provide the best-quality housing, procedures and policies must be reviewed constantly and changed. With that in mind, the Committee examined all the issues involved and gathered information from different areas of experience.

There was debate about the merits of mandatory, as opposed to discretionary, grants. Many people were fearful that, by opting for discretionary grants, the mandatory quality in the grants system would be lost and that discretionary grants might mean discretionary funding for grants. That caused the Committee concern, but there was a wealth of evidence as to the value of the Housing Executive being given the freedom to target the stubborn areas that have continually resisted reform in the housing market, such as rural housing and housing for the elderly and the disabled. Those areas must be targeted, and discretionary grants give the Executive more freedom and flexibility to do that. That kind of argument eventually swayed the Committee to unanimously support this dramatic change.

No one on the Committee had any doubt that allowing for the right to buy was the right thing to do. More than anything, the private market needs a regulatory system - a licensing system that will allow the Housing Executive to regulate directly. The Committee made that recommendation very clear. The Chairperson also referred to the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That order has been around for a long time, and it has become difficult to operate. There is a real need to review that Order, and I am glad that the Committee unanimously supported that suggestion in the report. The right to buy was supported by everyone, and the Committee had no difficulty agreeing on that issue.

I reserve my last few comments for the biggest and most important issue of all - large-scale voluntary transfer. Since the housing review began five years ago, in 1996, there has been uncertainty about where certain roles in public and social housing would fall. The review recommended that the Housing Executive should become the strategic authority that would regulate all housing. That provision was included in the 1998 Bill, which Lord Dubs put on the shelf, pending deliberation in the Assembly. We still await that Bill.

That recommendation was put forward to allow housing associations to maximise their funding arrangements by bringing in private money to help subsidise the housing new build. However, that creates a problem. If the Housing Executive has no statutory power to operate as a strategic authority, how can the housing association issue be managed?

That matter can no longer be avoided. It is a major disappointment to myself and others that the proposed contents of the new Bill contain no reference to that area. Once again it has been left aside. The Minister and the Department must grasp this nettle courageously and decide the future of the Housing Executive, its relationship with the housing associations and put it into a sensible strategic framework that we can work with to provide better housing for everyone. We can no longer dodge that issue. The longer we wait, the worse the situation will become.

I would like to begin by welcoming this debate today, and I would also like to pay tribute to the staff of the Committee for Social Development for the many hours of work which went into producing this report. It is also important that we recognise the contribution that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has made to housing since its establishment in 1971, particularly since this contribution was played out against a unique backdrop of 30 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Housing policy must be relative to the people and to the locality in its targeting, and it must be responsive to local needs, aiming at all times to help those who are most in need. Good housing provided well is crucial and should be a fundamental objective. A good home is a basic human right, and no one in the twenty-first century should have to live in sub-standard housing. Unfortunately, this is a reality for many people. Statistics indicate that there are around 44,000 unfit properties in Northern Ireland, 14,000 properties without central heating and 10,000 in urgent need of major repairs and improvements. The main aim, therefore, when drafting housing policy should be to target those who are socially excluded and the most vulnerable in our society. This objective must not get lost in amongst pointless red tape and bureaucracy.

The Housing Executive must be aware that change needs to happen from within the organisation itself, and this is where the role of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive comes into question. There is a potential conflict of interest in that the Housing Executive plays the role of both provider and regulator, which is effectively a gamekeeper and poacher scenario. How can the Housing Executive remain objective and unbiased? This is an area which will require in-depth examination in order to bring about a resolution.

I would like to turn my attention to the right-to-buy scheme which has successfully supported homeownership in that it has provided the opportunity for thousands of families to enter the housing market and become homeowners who otherwise would not have had the resources to contemplate ever owning their own home. There is no doubt that the scheme has been highly successful, but it must not be allowed to spiral out of control. The Housing Executive must take into account that there will be always be those who cannot afford to enter the housing market and therefore must seek to strike a balance between the housing stock which it is intending to sell off and the building of social housing.

In effect, the Housing Executive must ensure that it has examined the supply-and-demand chain. Current levels have indicated that there are less than 2,000 new social housing units being built by housing associations each year, whilst there is an annual loss of over 4,000 Housing Executive properties each year. It is therefore obvious that supply is falling short of demand, and urgent changes need to be made in order to accommodate the demand for social housing. The Housing Executive and the associations must have the ability to cope with rising housing need, and demand for social housing must never be found wanting.

I would like to conclude by stating that the future housing policy in Northern Ireland must be reflective of the particular features of the Northern Ireland housing scene and must be designed to consider the needs of the local population.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an tuairisc. I note and welcome the report, and I agree with the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development that the right to shelter, and to affordable, quality accommodation, is a basic, inalienable right. I would support the establishment of a constitutional right to proper housing for all. In the pyramid of needs - food, accommodation and heating - accommodation is central.

There is a need for a more focused housing strategy to deal with the many housing problems that afflict various communities throughout Ireland, North and South. I feel strongly about the lack of protection for the private rented sector. While private homeownership is the most common form of housing provision, a significant section of the population lives in private rented accommodation. More protection under the law must be offered to tenants in such circumstances - quality of accommodation, length of leases and rent increases.

As a rural-based Assembly Member, I am conscious of the need to address high levels of unfit rural housing, not least those homes in isolated rural areas that are not connected to public water mains. That is an important issue. In relation to waiting lists for Housing Executive homes, there should be targets in place to supply suitable accommodation within a maximum of two years, for 70% of applicants. I am also aware of the backlog of repairs that the Housing Executive is trying to address.

I support the development of the right-to-buy principle, and I join with other Members in acknowledging the continuing efforts by the Housing Executive to consult tenants on issues that affect them. In the western area, the Omagh-based officials of the Housing Executive do great work in seeking the views of tenants and homeowners. Strides are being made towards greater tenant empowerment and involvement, and that can only be a positive measure to secure greater participation of residents in estate strategy and management.

I am also conscious of special needs groups, such as travellers, people with disabilities, refugees, asylum seekers, women at risk, the elderly, the homeless and students. They all need, and have a right to, suitably tailored housing provision. The notion of having a housing ombudsman to protect the rights of homeowners has also been mentioned. That would ensure, for example, that hidden costs of auctioneers' and solicitors' fees are monitored. The report is a significant piece of work that will contribute to the wider housing debate.

I welcome the report because it gives the Assembly the opportunity to highlight many of the problems facing the people of Northern Ireland in relation to good-quality housing.

First, the report simply confirms what many of us already know: too much of our housing stock is still unfit. Throughout Northern Ireland 7·3% of houses are unfit, with Fermanagh, in particular, suffering badly. Fermanagh has an unfit rate of 17·5%, Cookstown has an unfit rate of 13%, and Down has an unfit rate of 10·6%. That is unacceptable.

It is no wonder that the report recommends that discretionary grant aid should be made available to ensure the promotion of high standards and that it should be targeted on an area basis.

Of course, the report does not comment on the unfitness of certain dwellings and neighbourhoods - unfitness brought on by sectarian graffiti, kerbstone painting, flying of paramilitary flags and the use of illegal and territorial symbols. Many people have to live with those trappings, and intimidation seems to be the norm. Complaints often bring on retaliatory action.

The Housing Executive, the Department for Social Development and the Assembly must do more to remove the blight that affects far too many homes and people. It is disappointing that the report makes no mention of that. I hope that that omission will not recur in the subsequent reports on antisocial behaviour and homelessness that the Chairman mentioned earlier.

The report highlights the poor provision of housing for students. There are 13,000 students in rented accommodation in Northern Ireland. However, under an anomaly in the law their residences are not considered to be houses in multiple occupancy, and they do not have the minimum protection currently provided under the law.

I am not alone in my concerns regarding the provision of stock for the rental sector. I fear that we are doing more than selling off the family silver. Two hundred and fourteen housing association dwellings and 91,000 Housing Executive homes have been sold. While we all welcome the growth of homeownership, we must also recognise that not all members of society want, or are able, to buy.

Are you against people owning their own homes?

Not at all. Listen to what I am saying.

The Member should address the Chair.

The man does not understand what has been said. Nearly 30% of dwellings are rented. The selling of stock to tenants has led to a decline in stock and in the standard of the housing held in stock, and we must ensure that no section of the population is discriminated against over Housing Executive sales.

There is still a need for social housing in almost every area for local people. Good, warm, affordable housing must be made available to those who need it. It is our responsibility to help those in our society who need it. We must help to facilitate that kind of housing and tackle homelessness. I am not yet convinced that the report goes far enough in recognising that need, but I am sure that it will start to tackle some of our housing problems sooner rather than later.

It would appear from listening to Mr McCarthy that he does not realise that the key reason for the Housing Executive's existence is social housing. If we do not recognise that, or try to confuse the issue by making it sound as though the Housing Executive is related to middle- and upper-class people, then we completely misunderstand the situation - [Interruption].

Order.

The Housing Executive is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary. However, it is hard to celebrate when rain is coming through ceilings, or there is an outside toilet and no bath, or if one is homeless and on a waiting list, or an older person waiting for adaptations, or there is inadequate heating or none at all. Mr McCarthy should concentrate on those things.

Let me talk about what that brilliant thing, the housing association, has done for us. The Government, in their wisdom, took the responsibility for social housing away from the Housing Executive, possibly because they had to listen to speeches such as Mr McCarthy's. However, 1,500 houses were allocated.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry for interrupting the Member's train of thought. Is it in order for a Member to stand up and make a contribution in the House and then, when the next Member gets up, to show him the error of his ways, to scuttle for the door? Should a Member not be required to stay for the next Member's speech?

That is not a point of order.

On a further point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an attack to be made on my Colleague who is now belatedly going to a council meeting?

These are not points of order.

I hope that I will be getting a little credited time for that interlude.

The social side of housing is of key importance, and if we do not concentrate on that we will not fulfil our obligation. The Housing Executive has built 90,000 houses in the past 22 years. It was the first housing body in the United Kingdom to take the initiative to sell houses through the right-to-buy scheme, which has produced around £1,000 million for Northern Ireland, chiefly in housing.

However, a few years ago the Minister at the time decided not to bother with the Housing Executive, saying that it was only a local authority and that the funds from housing should be absorbed by Government and given back drip by drip to well-behaving local authorities. That was wrong for Northern Ireland. To repeat what I said earlier: 370 houses that should have been built last year by housing associations were not built, and that additional 370 must come from this year's budget. That will not be achieved.

I will suggest a couple of initiatives that might be comparable to the initiative that Northern Ireland took when the right-to-buy scheme came on the stocks at the beginning of the Thatcher reign. We must think laterally. For example, I want to talk about deteriorating housing conditions in the private sector. Although I have emphasised the need in the social sector, we must not forget that many in the private sector are not well off; many are far worse off than those in the social sector. They live in houses that they cannot afford to repair, and they wait a long time for rehabilitation schemes. However, building societies and banks are now making available, at reasonable rates, advances on the residual value of houses that go on the market, especially after someone has died. They are prepared to put money into putting those houses into good condition.

Many people in the private sector paid off their mortgages years ago, and many are unaware that they have an asset that can be used for repairing their houses and putting them into good shape. Building societies and banks offer this to people whose houses are quite valuable. However, I think that situation could be improved.

The Member's time is up.

There was a lot of disturbance during my speech.

The Housing Executive goes in for housing action areas. It would be possible to encourage banks and building societies to sponsor them to enable people living in such areas to have better houses.

The Member's time is up.

At the end of that there was a relationship between the Deputy Speakers. They went over the time.

I agree with the Chairperson's opening remarks in complimenting the role of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

The report outlines a number of points. It shows that we think that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should be the major player. There have been problems with the delay of the housing Bill. There are rumours of what is likely to happen in housing, and morale in the Housing Executive is low. It believes that it is going to lose out and, because of that, staff will lose out. It is important to bring in the Bill as quickly as possible.

The Committee totally supports the right to buy. In all areas of the report we have made an argument for the right to buy, except for old-age pensioners. That caused a great deal of debate and a vote in the Committee. Votes are not normally taken in Committees. The Chairperson has already said that we get on well with one another, and we normally have an agreed solution at the end of the day. However, there was a vote on this occasion.

If we have a report that says that there is a right to buy in all areas, and we then discriminate against one particular sector, that will come back to haunt us in the form of human rights and equality problems. That should be considered. I believe that old-age pensioners should have the right to buy. At the time, I voted with Sammy Wilson. However, when the Committee agreed to put it forward as a recommendation, I voted with the Committee.

There are a number of areas in housing that we have not touched on yet, including homelessness and antisocial behaviour. That will be the subject of a separate report. People will be wondering why we did not deal with the homeless first, because to most people, that is one of the major problems in housing at the moment. We recognise that it is a major problem, and we recognise that it should be the subject of a report on its own, and we should be coming forward with recommendations to try to solve the problems of the homeless.

With most of these recommendations, if not all of them, we are aware that when the Minister for Social Development first occupied the post, he was totally in favour and put the case to the Department on most of these points.

The majority of reports that are brought forward have a problem with funding, and I compliment the Chairperson on making those remarks. It is a major problem in housing. We have gone down the pecking order. A number of years ago we were at the top of the list for funding, but now we are well down the list. Given the comments in the Assembly from other Departments, we may well slip again.

This may be classed as a political point, but it is sincere: given the arguments that the Minister has put to us in the past, the Social Development Committee feels that it is losing out because he is not attending Executive meetings and putting the case on its behalf. Will the Minister not reconsider his position and make the case that he is capable of making for proper funding for all that is recommended in the report?

I support the report and commend it to the Assembly.

It is fortuitous that the housing Bill was delayed, as the delay gave the Committee the opportunity to consider some of the issues that we knew would be in the Bill and some that we were not so sure would be included. The Minister and the Department should look through the recommendations. It could be argued, after studying the four main recommendations in the report, that it is a fairly lightweight document. We looked at the four aspects of housing, and if the Minister and the Department examine the responses that we got, they will form a good idea of the matters that the Bill should deal with. I am not unhappy that the Bill has been delayed; that has given us an opportunity to ensure that there is a much more forceful input into what happens.

I am sorry that Mr McCarthy has left us. Perhaps Mr Neeson can tell us whether the Alliance Party believes that we should not give people the right to buy their houses. The right to buy has received widespread support. I am only sorry that some members of the Committee have not abided by one of our recommendations on the right to buy, namely that

Having agreed that, several Committee members decided to treat old-age pensioners differently from everyone else. I will not name them; they can confess later if they wish.

It is good that the Minister is here to listen to the matters that have been raised. There was considerable debate on discretionary grants, and many of us still have fears about their use. The Minister has already informed us that they will be included in the housing Bill. It is important, given the experiences elsewhere, that the Bill require the Housing Executive to monitor expenditure on discretionary grants. First, we must ensure that we do not have the underspend that happened in other parts of the United Kingdom when discretionary grants were introduced. Secondly, we must ensure that if discretionary grants are used to target an area or a problem, that discretion is effective in tackling the problem.

People should move to what the report calls "the recyclable use of grants" if having equity in their property enables them to do so. This is a grant that is given in the form of a loan so that when the property is sold on the grant can be repaid and used again to improve housing conditions. I am convinced that there is a need to tackle some of those problems in the middle of Belfast and in rural areas.

Student accommodation should be included under houses in multiple occupation. This is not the case in many other parts of the United Kingdom, and we have some of the worst student housing conditions. We must also have a clear definition of houses in multiple occupation, because that too has been a failing elsewhere.

The degree of regulation must be tight enough to improve standards to ensure that appropriate rents are paid for houses that are not up to the highest standard. However, we must not return to the over-regulation that killed the private rented sector and left tenants much worse off. That was not the intention of those who drafted the Bill.

I am not a member of the Committee for Social Development, but I am pleased with the report. However, it has been difficult to read its two huge volumes so late in the day. I appeal to the Business Committee to ensure that literature and reports from Committees that are to be debated arrive in Members' houses a little more than one day before the debate.

There are some excellent recommendations in the report, and I am pleased at the wide-ranging number of submissions that the Committee took time to consider. I represent South Belfast, and I agree with Sammy Wilson's comments about houses in multiple occupation. South Belfast was a mixed community, but it is becoming predominantly a community of houses in multiple occupation, and matters pertaining to that probably take up most of my time. Families in particular in that mixed housing setting feel that there has been little interaction between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development on decisions about planning, planning control and the spread of houses in multiple occupation. It appears that landlords decide that a property will be suitable for multiple occupation and develop it accordingly.

I am pleased with some of the recommendations in the report that take on board what has already happened in England. I am aware that the differences between a simple notification scheme and a scheme with special control provisions, depending on the area, are complicated. It is good that the housing Bill that Members have so long awaited will take on board what has happened in England and note where the gaps exist.

A submission from Paddy Hillyard, Paddy Gray and Ursula McAnulty points out some of the problems experienced with voluntary licensing schemes in Great Britain, and they argue that Members here should take some of those concerns on board. Ultimately, one must realise that some landlords are reluctant to participate in those schemes. I have called meetings of landlords in my area. It is always the better landlords who attend, and it will be those landlords who will be prepared to enter the voluntary licensing scheme. Questions will remain about those who refuse to do so. The Assembly must be vigilant when enacting any piece of legislation and attempt to make it as corporate and wide ranging as possible. I am pleased with the thorough work that has been carried out on houses in multiple occupation for the report.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>