It is important that the Housing Executive can be flexible about grants and whether they should be mandatory or discretionary. However, surely the question should be about their maximum effectiveness and whether they are reaching the remaining unfit houses. Points are constantly made about the numbers of unfit houses in rural areas. One of the concerns expressed to me by residents in a mixed community is about the number of grants that are given to private landlords to improve their properties and turn them into houses for multiple occupation. Many argue that during the summer their area turns into a building site because builders descend to renovate houses at exactly the same time. Consequently the neighbours get little peace. They can almost see a pattern in who receives grants and when they can move in and upgrade the properties. The private rented sector has grown.

Clearly there are issues about the standard of stock and management and whether some type of control over the housing benefits that are given to tenants to move into those properties can be maintained. Again, I am aware that sub-standard housing is allocated to people in receipt of housing benefit, and that creates other problems.

As someone who has been involved in local government for almost 30 years, I have seen many changes, good and bad. However, the greatest change for good has taken place in the area of housing.

Before the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was set up, the housing situation was managed in a piecemeal fashion. Local authorities managed housing without any central control, and there were allegations of unfairness, which blighted local government. The Housing Executive has, on the whole, been a success over the past three decades, and I concur with the Committee's positive statement about that. That does not mean that I will not criticise the Housing Executive in the future, if it falls below its own high standards.

The Committee for Social Development has put a great deal of hard work into a comprehensive report, which deals with four main issues. I note that the Committee believes that the grant system should be discretionary, rather than mandatory, to allow for finer targeting. Grants have played a significant part in raising the standard of private housing. The prevailing system is somewhat ad hoc. If there are sufficient funds, the system operates effectively; if there is a shortfall in funding, the grants will dry up.

As the Committee has correctly noted, there is still an unacceptable volume of unfit housing in Northern Ireland, in the public and private sectors. The private sector is diverse, and targeting is necessary. The purpose of the new system should not be to allow owner-occupiers to make a profit on their properties, but to ensure a necessary standard of fitness and provide comfortable living accommodation. We need a transparent, discretionary system. In the circumstances, the recommendations relating to the grants system are to be welcomed, and the system should be rationalised as soon as possible.

Multiple occupation in the private rented sector has always been a controversial issue. The image of the Rachman landlord may be fading, but there is still room for abuse. Multiple occupancy can arise for various reasons: students often share facilities; a transient population can move rapidly between properties; and there are those who have fallen on hard times. Whatever the case, it is necessary that basic standards be laid down and enforced. The Housing Executive, with its experience and expertise, should have appropriate responsibility for that area.

The right-to-buy system has been a success over the past 20 years. Many tenants have taken the opportunity to move into the private housing sector. Many have seen the purchase of their previous Housing Executive property as a first step on the housing ladder. Many others have found that remaining in their original home has suited them just as well. The recommendation to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants is logical. The importance of such associations is increasing, and I fear that we could have a two-speed system, if the Housing Executive could sell properties and the housing associations could not.

Strict criteria should be laid down to prevent profiteering. Tenants should not be restricted to buying only their rented properties. In all cases involving the Housing Executive or the housing associations it should be ensured that the right to buy is for the benefit of the tenant and not a means for someone else to make a quick profit.

The final recommendation dealing with the transfer of property to social landlords raises interesting questions in a Northern Ireland context. In Great Britain there is a diversity of local authorities, while here there is only the Housing Executive.

I commenced by praising the Housing Executive, and it was pleasant to note that the Committee also has a high opinion of its capabilities. The more we can concentrate on the concerns of our constituents, the fabric of our society and its improvement, the greater will be the strength of the Assembly.

I welcome the report, and I note that the Committee for Social Development has put a great deal of effort into it. On grants, the report poses the question as to whether we should continue with the mandatory grants system or move to the discretionary system. I am not sure which is the best way to go. I have listened to the contributions, and I understand that a detailed investigation has been carried out into discretionary systems for housing grants. There seems to be a body of opinion in favour of a discretionary system.

In the responses from district councils, I noted submissions from Fermanagh District Council and Cookstown District Council. Those two district councils represent rural communities, and they both favoured the retention of the mandatory system and pointed up what they believe to be shortcomings in the discretionary system. The point was made that a grant under the discretionary system is more vulnerable when budgetary pressures come into play. There were concerns about the long delays in processing that were experienced when the discretionary system was introduced in England. Such concerns are not surprising in Fermanagh, which has a higher incidence of housing unfitness in its rural areas than anywhere else in these islands. The present rate of housing unfitness is 17·5%, and three years ago it was 21%. We were told by the then Minister - the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr Morrow - that unfitness in that area was dropping at a faster rate than anywhere else. I have no reason to doubt that. The levels, however, are still far too high.

Whatever system we end up with, I am in favour of a system that directs the money towards those who are most in need. We await the outcome of the further deliberations on the best way to go.

The closing order issue affects the Fermanagh area particularly badly. Two out of every three closing orders issued by the Housing Executive across Northern Ireland are for buildings in County Fermanagh. There is a problem there, and some needy cases are being severely penalised. Some of the most deserving cases are then deprived of grant aid under the replacement grant initiative. I ask the members of the Committee for Social Development to revisit the area of closing orders.

There is an interesting argument in relation to the human rights aspect, because closing orders are pretty much telling individuals that they do not have a right to live in their own homes any more.

Against that is the fundamental right of every individual to have a decent standard of living in their own home. Considered in detail, the matter may not be simple, but there are finely balanced judgements to be made. I urge that they be considered again, and I ask the Committee to seek a submission from the Human Rights Commission on the matter of closing orders. I have asked both Members who have held the post of Minister for Social Development to have the system of closing orders reviewed, and I hope that the current Minister is working on that.

I commend the Committee for the work that it has done. It has highlighted some salutary points for Members to consider, involving matters that each of us deal with every week as elected representatives. Members will have some knowledge of what the Committee is trying to do.

I commend the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for the admirable work that it does throughout the Province. It plays a constructive role, trying to chart a way forward for its tenants and for those who need social housing. Housing associations have taken on part of that role for the new build programme. The recommendation states that the Housing Executive should have overall responsibility for commissioning and carrying out research, drawing up district plans and regulating and scrutinising housing providers. The Housing Executive is the key organisation concerned with the provision of houses. It may not build, but it has the necessary knowledge and the necessary people. Meanwhile, housing associations are doing their best to adapt to their responsibilities for the new build programme.

I would like the Committee to take on board one issue that has not been addressed. In the Strangford constituency and Ards Borough Council area, housing associations are keen to build houses, but land is unavailable. When the housing associations seek to buy land, they find that private housing developers are able to gazump them. Housing associations are, therefore, unable to meet the demand for social housing. Given the content of recommendation 7.5 on page 20 of the report, I would like the Minister or the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development to explain how that issue could be addressed. We need co-ordination between the Department for Regional Development, the Department of the Environment and the Department for Social Development. Without that co-operation and mutual assistance, the way forward will be difficult to find.

The recommendation about the right-to-buy scheme is welcome, and it is important that those who wish to buy a house should have that opportunity. I do not accept that every tenant who buys a house from the housing association or from the Housing Executive does so primarily to make money. They do so because it makes sound economic sense, they like the house that they live in and they want to take advantage of the scheme. People who have had long tenancies should have the right to purchase their house.

The valuation of houses is an issue that is often raised by my constituents. It usually involves the district valuer with the Housing Executive or housing association.

They do not look only at the house; they look at its potential. Many houses in the area that I represent, especially in the rural community, have large gardens. Often, the district valuer, along with the Housing Executive, decides that there is potential for building another house in the garden. I counsel caution on that, because the opportunity to build a house may not always be there, as we are aware from past examples.

The criteria that we are drawing up ought to consider that. Should the situation arise where a person tries to take advantage of a large garden to build another dwelling, then, and only then, would the extra money be taken into consideration. The person may not get planning permission for the house because of lines of sight and other planning considerations. I urge the Committee to look again at those two issues.

I congratulate the Chairperson and the Committee on the report. I am not a member of that Committee, but, like others who are not, I would like to comment on one of the issues that has a bearing on many constituencies, including mine, and that is houses in multiple occupation, which Sammy Wilson and Monica McWilliams have referred to.

Until comparatively recently houses in the multiple occupation section of the private rented sector were largely unregulated, and that was bad for the individuals and families who lived in them. In 2000 the Housing Executive estimated that roughly one third did not reach adequate fire and amenities standards. At that time, as the Chairman said, around 30,000 people lived, and presumably still live, in houses in multiple occupation.

The previous approach to this matter may also have had a negative implication for certain areas of our major cities and towns. That is because it implied an uncontrolled and unplanned expansion of population density, with its attendant problems for the residents in the areas, such as insufficient car-parking space and an insufficient provision of cleansing services. According to Housing Executive publications, that is a problem in many parts of Greater Belfast - for example, in the Antrim Road, Lisburn Road, and in the Queen's University and Ormeau Road areas. However, it is also a matter of concern in other parts of the Province.

As the Committee's report notes, and as some Members have noted, a fundamental issue with respect to houses in multiple occupation is that of definition. That is inherently difficult. In English case law, as the report notes, up to nine criteria have been listed as relevant in identifying whether or not a house is in multiple occupation.

Belfast City Council, in its submission to the inquiry, proposed using a definition that was suggested in 1999 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Great Britain. A house in multiple occupation is defined as

We should consider whether that definition could be adopted here. It would be simpler than what we do at present.

I support the Committee in urging the mandatory regulation of houses in multiple occupation, but I leave open the question of whether registration should be enforced by the Housing Executive or some other agency. I support the motion.

I welcome the report. It shows the importance of devolution in Northern Ireland, and it clearly reflects the views of people who have been elected to represent the people of Northern Ireland directly.

I endorse some of Monica McWilliams's remarks about the late receipt of the report. Although it has nothing to do with the staff or the Committee, the late issuing of reports seems to have become adopted procedure. The Committee should consider the matter when it next meets.

Like Sir John Gorman, I praise the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Some may not agree, but I firmly believe that Northern Ireland has the highest standards of public sector housing not only in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe. It has been widely acclaimed, largely due to the Housing Executive's work.

Some Members misunderstood Mr McCarthy when he spoke on the controversial issue of the right to buy. The Alliance Party fully supports it. - [Interruption].

Order.

All Members, if they are dedicated public representatives, should realise that the bulk of houses that are bought are in what may be termed "good" housing areas. That has reduced the housing stock in those areas.

Those of us who were members of the Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue will remember when it debated housing. At the time, we expressed our concerns that responsibilities for new build would be passed from the Housing Executive to housing associations. Those concerns have now more or less come to fruition because there are not enough new builds in Northern Ireland.

Formerly, budgets for new builds came directly from the Department; today housing associations largely depend on private finance. There are not as many new builds as are needed. The involvement of private finance also means that the homes that are being built are more expensive. I support the recommendation that those who live in housing association houses should, like their counterparts in Housing Executive houses, have the right to buy. I hope that that clarifies matters.

I share many of the concerns that were expressed about standards in the private sector. Monica McWilliams and Esmond Birnie mentioned houses in multiple occupancy. We must ensure that there are strong regulations on safety and facilities in private sector houses. I am also concerned about value for money. There must be some form of monitoring. We must ensure that there is a high standard of housing in rural areas, as I strongly believe in the ethos of the level playing field. I hope that the Department will give serious consideration to the issues that were raised in the report. The new urban area plan must introduce much greater use of brownfield sites.

I am not a member of the Committee but I have been involved in housing matters with Mr ONeill in the Northern Ireland Housing Council and on the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I welcome the Committee's report, and I congratulate the Committee and the Chairperson, Mr Cobain, on it.

The Housing Executive has been a huge success, but even it would agree with the Committee that a fundamental review is necessary. I support the principle that every citizen has the fundamental human right to good, affordable housing. I also support the right of all - not just some - tenants to buy. At present, some tenants may have the right to buy and others may not.

Do you disagree with party policy?

I was unaware that my party had a policy on this.

I support the right of all tenants to buy, because owning a house contributes to stability.

The present policy is that if a bungalow is allocated to a tenant over the age of 60 he or she may not buy it; if it is allocated to a tenant under the age of 60 he or she may buy it. That must be changed, because everyone should have the same rights. If they do not, equality issues may be raised. All tenants must have that right.

Housing associations have a voluntary scheme that gives their tenants the right to buy. However, that should be introduced into the legislation. One voluntary housing association, the Northern Ireland Co-Ownership Housing Association, operates a fifty-fifty policy - buy 50% and rent 50%. I hope that the Minister considers whether the 50% balance qualifies for the normal Housing Executive discount or whether co-owners must pay the full amount when they decide to buy their part of the balance. I hope that the Minister tackles some of those issues when he deals with the Bill.

The sale of houses brings in a huge amount of money to the Executive. Earlier, the Minister of Finance and Personnel said that he is using this major source of savings - the receipts from Housing Executive sales - to boost capital funds. Would it not be better to use those savings to reduce the huge debt that has been a millstone about the Housing Executive's neck for several years? I want the Minister to take on board some of those points. I support the Committee's report, at least in principle.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today's important debate. I warmly commend the Committee for Social Development for completing the report. I agree with Billy Bell about the right-to-buy issue, and I seek further clarification on that from the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development and from the Minister for Social Development. There is an anomaly in the current legislation, and that is a matter that I am attempting to deal with and expedite in my constituency.

I know of two relatively young constituents who live in adjoining properties that were built as older persons' dwellings. One of the young people inherited his tenancy from his late grandmother and, therefore, is prevented from purchasing the house. The second person was let the house through the normal allocation process and wisely bought the property. I draw the Minister's attention to the anomaly in the legislation. It is unfair, and I ask him to take account of that when he considers the legislation. It is important, on the basis of equity and fairness, that a scheme be introduced that provides all tenants with the right to purchase a house. That is a personal view.

I am interested in the logic of the current legislation and in the view that restrictions should be in place for older persons' dwellings. The equality argument outweighs the considerations that I have heard. I would be grateful if the Chairperson of the Committee and the Minister for Social Development could address those aspects of the report.

The debate has been interesting, and I thank all Members who participated in such a constructive and positive way. I welcome the Committee for Social Development's interest in the issue; I commend its efforts to ensure that the policies that are being pursued meet housing need and provide good housing services. That is the thrust of the legislative proposals that form the backdrop to the Committee's review and report.

Many individuals, organisations and groups have a range of views on how best to advance housing policy. That is a healthy situation, and I am pleased to note the number of organisations and groups that responded to the Committee's request for submissions. The fact that those people took the time and interest to contribute to the consultation exercise demonstrates the issue's importance. I welcome the fact that the principal recommendations of the report and the review are in line with the current policy and legislative proposals of the Department for Social Development.

Members will appreciate that my officials and I wish to take the time to consider the report fully and discuss its detail. The issue of the time that Members have had to consider the report was raised. I will look at the report in detail and carefully note comments Members have made. My officials and I will begin to consider immediately the full content of the report and the comments and questions raised today, and I will make my views known in due course.

The Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Cobain, raised the issue of the timing of the legislation. As Members are aware, the draft Bill is almost ready, and I envisage that full consultation will begin early in the new year and proceed rapidly. I expect the draft Bill to be put before the Executive in the next couple of weeks.

First, with regard to the private sector renewal recommendation, the Committee considers that the introduction of a grants system based on a largely discretionary approach, rather than a mandatory approach, should facilitate better targeting and offer more options when helping those in poor housing conditions. I am pleased to note the Committee's positive view on this matter. The potential for being able to target those most in need in a better way is the purpose behind my current proposal.

The issue of equality was raised with particular concern in the review. Equality considerations will be a prerequisite to any new targeting proposals, in the event of a discretionary scheme being introduced and the Housing Executive considering using that discretion to target the scheme in a different manner than at present.

Mr Sammy Wilson mentioned the issue of ensuring proper monitoring, and that monitoring should ensure that problems were properly addressed. The Department will take that important point on board.

Mr Gallagher referred to closing orders. Closing orders are almost exclusively used on vacant properties. A recent legal opinion suggests that the Housing Executive may have some latitude on the use of closing orders, to the extent that they may be used less frequently in the future. When Mr Gallagher reads Hansard he will be interested in that point I have made about the issue.

The second main recommendation concerned houses in multiple occupation and the regulation of the private rented sector. In line with my proposal, the Committee thought that the responsibility for this function should be transferred from the Department for Social Development to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and that the Housing Executive should be responsible for introducing and operating a licensing scheme. This sector had been in decline and suffered from poor management and condition standards. There is evidence, however, that the sector is growing and has a valuable role to play in meeting housing needs. The current proposals are welcome, therefore, as we try to ensure that an increase in size does not bring an increase in traditional problems. The current proposals will give the Housing Executive the authority to design and operate a statutory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. I note the Committee's endorsement of the proposal to transfer regulation of the private rented sector to the Housing Executive.

Several Members, including Mr Sammy Wilson, Dr Birnie and others, raised the issue of the definition of a house in multiple occupation, with particular reference to the matter of student accommodation. Under the proposed definition, any house that is not occupied by blood relatives would constitute a house in multiple occupation. That would include, for example, semi- detached houses that are now used for multiple occupation. Mr McCarthy raised that issue, and I assure him that the proposed revised definition of a house in multiple occupation would bring the types of properties that he mentioned into the purview of the Housing Executive and other agencies.

The third main recommendation of the report relates to the right of housing association tenants to buy. The Committee believes that, although the extension of a housing association tenant's right to buy should proceed at this stage, a complete review of the scheme should be initiated, along the lines suggested by the Chartered Institute of Housing, Northern Ireland. The proposed right to buy of housing association tenants cannot be regarded in isolation from that of other tenants. Unless it is essential to do otherwise, the design of the scheme for housing associations will mirror that of the Housing Executive's scheme.

I was interested in the "debate within a debate" - if you could call it that - between Mr McCarthy and Mr Neeson, neither of whom is in the Chamber now. I am not sure whether that debate represented a conflict between the Unionist and Nationalist wings of the Alliance Party - but they themselves will have to resolve that issue in due course. Presumably, one of them will re-designate as a homeowner and the other as a social housing tenant.

Order.

A comprehensive review of the Housing Executive's house sale scheme, which involves wide consultation, is under way. As part of that review my Department will bring to the attention of the Housing Executive the findings of the Committee and the comments of the organisations that contributed. That includes the comments that were made by Mr Kennedy and others in the "debate within a debate" on older persons' dwellings and other issues by party Colleagues and other Members. That will form part of the review, and Members may want to draw that to the attention of the Housing Executive and the Department.

Where does the Minister stand?

I, of course, await the outcome of the review. I am sure that Members would wish me to engage in a proper consultation process to consider the issue properly before I reach any conclusions rather than preclude any outcomes - [Interruption].

Order.

That would be entirely in line with all the previous recommendations by the Committee.

The Committee believes that there needs to be a body that can take a strategic role in respect of housing provision in Northern Ireland. The Committee recommends that the Housing Executive should have an enhanced strategic role and that the proposed Bill should address the conflict between such a role and the current role of the Housing Executive as the largest social landlord in Northern Ireland.

I recognise, as does the Committee in its report, that large-scale voluntary transfers are just one means of helping to attract more resources to the housing business. I am keen to explore any other suggestions or approaches that could help in that regard, including those that will be offered during the Committee's review.

The current proposals in the housing Bill are designed to facilitate only the easier exercise of a large-scale voluntary transfer policy by the Housing Executive in the event of such a future policy decision being made. Under current legislation, if a single tenant is not in favour of a large-scale voluntary transfer scheme by which he is affected, his objections are sufficient to frustrate the scheme entirely. The proposals would allow a large- scale voluntary transfer scheme to proceed if a majority of tenants were in favour of it. That is the purpose of the legislative proposals.

I will consider the potential for conflict of interests if the Housing Executive is given a more strategic role while it retains landlord responsibilities.

The Committee itself points out that dilemma in paragraph 7.5 on page 20 of the report. It recommends that

It does not say how that should be addressed, but it points out the issue. It is a difficult one, and I look forward to exploring how we can address it in due course.

Mr ONeill mentioned regulation of housing associations. As he knows, associations have been regulated and monitored by the Department and by central Government for over 25 years. The Committee recognises that there remains a concern about the conflict of interest because the Housing Executive is still a major landlord.

There were some other points raised in the course of the debate in relation to funding issues generally, and to targeting of resources. Mark Robinson mentioned that, and I can assure him that resources are targeted. New build meets the needs of those who must access social housing. The grant scheme targets those in unfit housing and the disabled, who cannot afford to make necessary improvements. There are other examples of targeting of resources, such as the warm homes scheme and the scheme for travellers. It is clear that resources are being targeted, as he said.

The issue of funding in general was mentioned by the Chairperson, Mr Cobain, and by Mr Tierney and others. I readily acknowledge Members' concerns, and, indeed, share their concerns about future funding for housing in Northern Ireland. I will make my position absolutely clear. I will be doing everything in my power to secure maximum funding for housing against a backdrop of competing priorities. I know the importance of housing, which many Members have mentioned, and its role - not just in providing homes for people, but in promoting social inclusion and in tackling a range of issues that are of immediate importance to people living in communities.

I will continue to argue strongly for funding to meet our objectives under the Programme for Government, and I look forward to, and know I will have, the support of Members in dealing with this issue. There are pressures and concerns, which Members will be aware of. Some have been flagged up in the House in relation to how some people might view the way in which the housing budget has received funding in the past and how it might be affected in the future. However, I believe, with Members, that housing is still a major priority for people in this society.

Yes, we have invested heavily over the years - and rightly so. In the rest of the UK they are now pumping in billions of pounds because of gross underinvestment over many years. In no way should we in Northern Ireland be penalised because we have taken a sensible approach to investment year on year. That investment has to continue, and I look forward to the support of Members on all sides who share my concern about getting the necessary funding to maintain the budget.

Once again I want to place on record my appreciation for the work carried out by the Committee and its members, and the contribution of other Members as well.

I am grateful for the chance to wind up this debate. It is clear from this afternoon's proceedings that Members continue to regard housing as an important matter; the contributions from various Members are testament to that. I was especially encouraged to hear views from Members who sit on the Committee, and I will now try to respond to the issues raised. I cannot talk about housing without mentioning Larne, and let me say to Danny O'Connor that Larne has been mentioned as far as housing is concerned.

Neglecting his constituents today.

Order.

I may need his vote later on. Mr O'Connor is not well at the moment, and I am sure that the House will join me in sending him hopes for a speedy recovery.

I agree with Eamonn ONeill that the housing situation is in constant change, and the housing Bill will give us time to review that. Sammy Wilson and several other Members talked about the right-to-buy scheme and the over 60s. If we could solve the problems with the right-to-buy scheme by simply extending it to all tenants, I would be in favour, but it is not as simple as that.

There are older people in urban areas in my constituency and in the Minister's constituency who live in accommodation that clearly does not suit their needs and who have to wait for a long time, sometimes for five to seven years, for a suitable house. Selling off all of those properties might mean that people living in unsuitable conditions might never be rehoused. However, the next time I deal with a constituent on that matter I will be able to say that Sammy Wilson believes that his house is bright and proper and that the most important issue is not his quality of life but his right to buy.

I cannot recall anyone disagreeing with the report. It will be interesting to see how many people in the House support the Committee and the Minister in the Budget debate when we look for additional funds for housing.

Prof McWilliams remarked on the licensing scheme, which will bring benefits for tenants and landlords. John Tierney raised the issue of homelessness, which, together with antisocial behaviour in Housing Executive estates, will be the subject of the Committee's next inquiry.

Other people touched on the future of the Housing Executive, one of the major issues the Committee has dealt with. We cannot have gamekeeper and poacher, and the role of the Housing Executive has to be balanced with that of major landlord. I hope the Bill will deal with that.

In my opening remarks I talked about local solutions to local problems. Tommy Gallagher drew attention to rural areas in the Province, and he provided us with a flexible response to the needs of the people in those areas. Jim Shannon raised interesting points about joined-up government, and the Committee will need to look at that again. Dr Birnie made a valid point about the definition of houses in multiple occupation, which the Minister has dealt with in detail.

Ivan Davis talked about the right to buy and said that it should not be seen as profiteering, but that it has enabled tenants to buy their homes. Northern Ireland has the highest number of owner-occupiers, and it is beneficial to the Province. In the rest of the United Kingdom there are approximately 70% owner-occupiers.

Mr Neeson talked about brownfield sites. The Social Development Committee led the charge in pressing the Minister for Regional Development to set a more challenging brownfield target, and our views did prevail somewhat on that.

As regards the issue of accommodation, we are all concerned that people here have accommodation that meets their needs. We have had discussions, and we listened today to the Minister of Finance and Personnel talking about budgets for the future. The Housing Executive is once again facing a problem with funding. We are talking about targeting social need, which begins with proper housing for people in rural and urban areas.

<< Prev