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

Tuesday 24 September 2002

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Housing Bill: 
Committee Stage
(NIA 24/01)

Members present:

Mr Cobain (Chairperson)
Sir John Gorman
Mr B Hutchinson
Mr ONeill
Mr M Robinson

Witnesses:

Mr S Carson ) Department
Mr J Burns ) for
Mr G Davidson ) Social Development

The Chairperson: Welcome Mr Davidson, Mr Carson and Mr Burns from the Department for Social Development. The Committee is continuing its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing Bill.

Clause 80 agreed to.

Clause 81 referred for further consideration.

Clauses 82 to 88 agree to.

Clause 89 (Conditions of participation: general)

Mr Carson: The Department may introduce an amendment to the clause subject to approval by the Minister.

Clause referred for further consideration.

Clause 90 referred for further consideration.

Clauses 91 to 97 agreed to.

Clause 98 (Assistance in respect of mobile homes)

The Chairperson: Does the clause cover caravans?

Mr Davidson: It covers mobile homes, which is a contradiction in terms because it covers mobile homes that are static.

The Chairperson: Does the clause cover caravan sites?

Mr Davidson: It covers mobile homes on such sites. It includes the type of mobile home that would be on blocks. Such a mobile home would probably have been there for some time and would clearly be the place in which people are living: it would be their principal home.

The Chairperson: Therefore, the home would be on a caravan site.

Mr Davidson: Yes. However, the mobile home may not always be on a caravan site: it could be sited anywhere.

The Chairperson: However, caravan sites are covered. Is that correct?

Mr Davidson: Yes, but only if people living in caravans on those sites are using them as their principal homes.

The Chairperson: Would the clause cover people who live in caravans on caravan sites for six months at a time?

Mr Davidson: No.

Mr ONeill: When the Department receives a comment of concern from the Equality Commission or similar Government body, are you obliged to pay attention to the advice given?

Mr Davidson: The advice that we have received via consultation is that the clause may contravene the Race Relations Order. Are you talking in general terms?

Mr ONeill: I do not want to get into particular arguments. Would you normally take such advice on board?

Mr Carson: It is not necessary for us to take on board all the comments made by the bodies concerned. In fact, many of the comments are made on the basis of a misunderstanding. When we come to discussing the clauses in detail, we will explain the position.

The Chairperson: Are Bills human-rights proofed before they come before the Committee?

Mr Carson: Yes.

The Chairperson: Can I assume that when this Bill is finally passed, it will be human-rights proofed?

Mr Carson: Yes. When Bills are introduced, the Speaker’s Office sends a copy to the appropriate bodies.

Clause referred for further consideration.

Clauses 99 to 114 agreed to.

Clauses 115 to 116 referred for further consideration.

Clause 117 agreed to.

Clauses 118 to 123 referred for further consideration.

Clause 124 agreed to.

Clause 125 (Disposal of houses let by the Executive to secure tenants)

The Chairperson: Does this provision depend on how many houses are involved? Would it involve a large housing estate?

Mr Davidson: Yes. It could also be a street in a housing estate. It would be for the landlord to decide the area to be tested.

The Chairperson: Could it also be the Housing Executive or housing associations?

Mr Davidson: Yes. Generally, housing associations do not have the size of properties that would make this feasible.

The Chairperson: Is this clause being included so that the Housing Executive may have the power to do so?

Mr Davidson: Yes.

Clause referred for further consideration.

Clause 126 agreed to.

Clauses 127 to 132 referred for further consideration.

Mr M Robinson: I need to be excused for a few minutes, which will leave the Committee inquorate.

The Committee suspended from 2.18 pm to 2.23 pm.

Clauses 133 to 135 referred for further consideration.

Clause 136 (Realisation of value of Department’s loans portfolio)

Sir John Gorman: We should defer this clause because it provides a privilege that is not available to the Housing Executive.

Mr ONeill: On principle, where people have consulted with us and have proposed alternatives, we should give them the opportunity to discuss the matter with us.

Clause referred for further consideration.

Clauses 137 to 144 referred for further consideration.

19 September 2002 / Menu / 26 September 2002