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 8 October 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
Mr S Wilson
Witnesses:
Mr S Baird )
Mr S Carson ) Department for Social
Mr G Davidson ) Development
The Chairperson:
I welcome Mr Scott Carson, Mr George Davidson and Mr Stephen Baird from the Department for Social Development.
Clause 18 (New ground of domestic violence)
The Chairperson:
The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has suggested an amendment to this clause. It proposes that it be redrafted to read:
"the court is satisfied that the partner who has left is unlikely to return to live with the other partner".
Mr ONeill:
What is the Department’s view on the proposed amendment?
Mr Davidson:
The Department thinks that the current provision is sufficiently clear and that no amendment is necessary.
Mr S Wilson:
A person is unlikely to return as a lodger. That is the only other interpretation that could be made.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendment?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 19 (Extension of ground that grant of tenancy induced by false statement)
Mr ONeill:
Could the Department give its views on the suggested amendments? The Council for the Homeless (Northern Ireland) proposes the deletion of this clause and thinks that the current reading of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 is more appropriate. Shelter Northern Ireland agrees with the objective of the clause but believes the proper proof must be available to back up the decision.
Mr Davidson:
Shelter is not arguing with the objective but wants proper proof to be made available. It is for the Housing Executive to determine what is proper proof and whether it would pass muster if the courts examined it. We see no reason why the provision should be changed in any way.
Mr B Hutchinson:
I would like to hear the Department’s view on the proposed amendment by the Council for the Homeless (Northern Ireland).
Mr Davidson:
The Council for the Homeless suggests that the existing grounds in the 1983 Order are adequate. However, it does not cover false statements made by third parties acting at tenant’s instigation, and that must be changed. We do not propose that the current provision should stay.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 20 (Proceedings for possession or termination)
The Chairperson:
There are several suggested amendments to this clause.
Mr Davidson:
There are three suggested amendments to clause 20 from three organisations. Shelter says that the proceedings should be available to non-secure tenants. We interpret that as referring to tenants in the private-rented sector. However, landlords in the private-rented sector already have provisions for possession of dwellings. There is no need for that provision in this legislation.
The Housing Rights Service recommends the removal of the power of courts to dispense with the notice of intention in cases of antisocial behaviour. The Department’s view is that this needs to be there. It is reasonable to assume that it would be appropriate to dispense with the notice if a court considered it just and equitable to do so. We oppose the proposed amendment on the basis that it would undermine a policy objective of taking a quicker route, or at least a route that would remove one impediment.
The Chairperson:
Are you saying that the Department agrees that landlords should not have to issue a formal notice of proceedings for possession?
Mr Davidson:
Private-sector landlords already have ways of getting possession of buildings or termination of tenancies. There is no need for this legislation to make provision for that. This legislation is for social housing tenants only.
The Chairperson:
Yes, but I think that the Committee wants these provisions to apply across the field.
Mr S Wilson:
The notice of intent is really a warning to the person engaged in antisocial behaviour. Is it not correct to say that, having been issued, the warning would enable a termination of tenancy to be fast-tracked? Is it not the case that to do away with that notice is to do away with treating antisocial behaviour as a special category?
Mr Davidson:
We would do away with the notice, provided that the court agreed that it was reasonable to do so. It would simply remove one step from the process.
Mr ONeill:
I am not sure that I could support the removal of this right. It provides some protection. Removing it would shorten the process and make it easier to evict people.
Mr S Wilson:
Is that not the whole point in cases where somebody is engaging in antisocial behaviour and making life a misery for those around them? The process is tortuous at present. If a court agreed to remove this step, it would be possible to deal with the problem. It would not mean that people would be evicted; it would mean that courts could deal with the problem more quickly. Is that not the case?
Mr Davidson:
That is right. The courts would have to decide that it was equitable to dismiss the notice on each occasion. A court would consider the circumstances of the case before it decided that it was reasonable to dispense with the notice.
Mr S Wilson:
So a safeguard exists in that a court could decide that enough evidence had not been provided to do away with the notice.
Mr Davidson:
That is a possibility.
The Chairperson:
Did you say that private-sector landlords have this provision already?
Mr Davidson:
No, but they have various mechanisms for evicting antisocial tenants.
The Chairperson:
I know that.
Mr Baird:
Private-sector landlords can serve a notice to quit, which is quicker than the procedure for terminating secure tenancies.
The Chairperson:
The Committee should also deal with the issue of temporary tenancies.
Mr Baird:
I think the issue at stake is simply a proposal to streamline the termination procedure for secure tenancies, as opposed to introductory tenancies.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content with clause 20?
Mr ONeill:
I reserve my judgement on that.
Mr Davidson:
The Council for the Homeless (Northern Ireland) suggest that this provision be omitted on the basis that fast-tracking eviction could lead to increased levels of homelessness. An alternative is an amendment to remove the power of the courts. The Department’s view is that to do so would be to remove the policy intention.
Mr ONeill:
I am not content with the provision. Of the three suggested amendments, I prefer the second. If it is the wish of the Committee, then so be it, but I am not content.
The Chairperson:
We can vote on the amendment. There are three members in favour of and three against the amendment. I have a casting vote.
The Committee Clerk:
Mr Chairperson, I need to check this with regard to the legislation. I am not sure whether you are voting on the amendment or the clause.
The Chairperson:
I am voting on the amendment.
Mr S Wilson:
The argument is that it will be quicker to deal with antisocial tenants, if we remove the requirement for a notice to be given. However, if we take that away, are we not, in effect, saying that antisocial behaviour will be treated in the same way as any other reason for terminating a tenancy? Would that not be the effect of removing these requirements?
The Chairperson:
We would be removing only one requirement.
Mr S Wilson:
However, all the clauses deal with that requirement. Are we not, in effect, removing the ability to deal with antisocial behaviour as a reason for terminating a tenancy differently from other reasons?
Mr ONeill:
It is still sufficient. There is provision in the clause to deal with that.
Sir John Gorman:
Is it not the case that these provisions for antisocial behaviour have been a total and absolute flop? They are no good. In England, a new idea has been proposed, which members can read about for themselves. It should be given some consideration. We should not be so picky about clauses and subsections, because these provisions are not going to be any good anyway. We may as well wait until some positive experience has been gained. For example, housing officials should be trained to deal with antisocial behaviour.
Mr Davidson:
I presented a briefing paper to the Committee following a previous meeting.
Sir John Gorman:
Yes, you did. I am reading it.
Mr Davidson:
I briefed the Committee on the matters that are the subject of consultation in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not about the failure of existing policies per se but the fact that local authorities across the water are not employing them consistently or well. That is really the basis of the present consultation. There is a plethora of local authority landlords across the water, but that is not the case here. There is one social-housing landlord which thinks that these provisions will help it deal with antisocial behaviour. The consultation paper across the water does not deal with that. There are different problems there because of the range of local authority landlords.
Sir John Gorman:
All I am doing is repeating what you said in your letter, namely that Committee members may be aware of the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders, known as ASBOs, and that their effectiveness has been patchy. That is rather more polite than the way I put it.
Mr Baird:
ASBOs were introduced in England under criminal justice legislation. They would also be a criminal justice matter in Northern Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill that really equates to ASBOs. Clearly, a great deal of publicity has been given to the less than effective employment of ASBOs in England, but we do not propose to introduce them in this Bill.
The Chairperson:
We shall refer the clause for further consideration.
Mr S Wilson:
For what reason are we referring it?
The Chairperson:
We must speak about voting; there is a convention that we must clarify.
Clause 20 referred for further consideration.
Clause 21 (Power to grant injunctions against antisocial behaviour)
The Chairperson:
There are a number of suggested amendments to this clause. Do you wish to say anything on the amendments, Mr Davidson?
Mr Davidson:
In general terms, yes. Many people ask for the extension of this facility to private-sector landlords. By the same token, we do not propose to amend the Bill in that regard.
The Chairperson:
You are not willing to treat private-sector landlords in the same way as others?
Mr Davidson:
The provisions are to allow social landlords to deal with antisocial behaviour better. There are already laws in place that allow private-sector landlords to try and deal with antisocial behaviour among their tenants. It might well be that they are not effective, perhaps because the agencies responsible do not get involved, but that is not what we intend for the Housing Executive and the housing associations. We are giving them the power to seek injunctions to stop antisocial behaviour.
The Chairperson:
So it is the Housing Executive, housing associations and so forth.
Mr Davidson:
Yes. It covers secure tenancies under housing associations and the Housing Executive.
Mr B Hutchinson:
I do not want to go over all this again, for it has already been rehearsed in other discussions. However, I am concerned about consistency here, particularly for people who live in streets where there is a mix of people who own their own homes, social landlords and private landlords. Those who live in the houses can behave in different ways and not be affected by the law. That is my difficulty; there is no consistency here if we apply it only to one group of people.
The Chairperson:
The Committee needs a definition of "landlord".
Mr Davidson:
There are private-sector landlords and social landlords. The latter are the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in Northern Ireland. The proposal will give social landlords the right to ask for notices of intention, which are part of the current process, to be dispensed with. However, where the court thinks it is reasonable, it has dispensed with those. Presumably, in determining reasonableness, the courts will look at what the Housing Executive and housing associations have done to deal with the issue.
The proposal does not give private-sector landlords the power to seek an injunction or to ask for a notice of intention to be set aside. Private-sector landlords would use a notice to quit, rather than an injunction, and tenants who have been found guilty of antisocial behaviour would be removed from the property in that way. No private-sector landlord would go through an injunction process. Tenancies in the private-rented sector are rarely secure. However, we are referring to secure tenancies that other social landlords have, and those are difficult to end. It is less difficult to end a non-secure tenancy, which is more common in the private-rented sector.
The Chairperson:
The Committee is concerned about the distinction between private landlords and social landlords, and we want that removed.
Mr S Wilson:
For the sake of argument, and bearing in mind that the Committee has not made a decision, where the word "landlord" is used in the Bill members might want that to refer to the private sector and social-rented sector — and I have found that notices to quit can be difficult to implement in either case — where would the definition be changed? Is there a schedule to the Bill where "landlord" is defined as only a social landlord? What must we change if we decided to go down the route that that must include all landlords?
Mr Davidson:
In the provisions we are examining, regardless of where there may be a definition already, it would be relatively easy to make a change to:
"the Executive or registered housing associations or private sector landlord".
That provision could be made. However, private-sector landlords have not asked for those provisions in the consultation process. Private-sector landlords as individuals, or their association, have not seen fit to ask for the powers that they would receive from being included in the wording.
Mr S Wilson:
Some private-sector landlords may not want that. However, I find that some are happy to hide behind the fact that the law does not enable them to do some things. I would like to be able to tell them that they can do something about a tenant. However, they may be happy to take their rent, and therefore they do not want to do anything. If we change clause 1 to read:
"the Executive or registered housing associations or private sector landlord",
even though it is titled "Introductory tenancies", will that definition of landlord apply throughout the Bill?
Mr Carson:
The problem is that the term "landlord" is not necessarily used. The Bill refers to the
"Executive or registered housing association".
I am not sure that landlords are mentioned in the provisions to which you refer. Clause 1(1) states:
"The Executive or a registered housing association may elect to operate an introductory tenancy regime."
Therefore every time those organisations are referred to, we would be asking if the same should be applied to private-sector landlords.
Mr S Wilson:
However, clause 20(1) states:
"The court shall not entertain proceedings for the possession of a dwelling-house let under a secure tenancy unless
(a) the landlord has served a notice on the tenant complying with the provisions of this Article, or".
Does "landlord" include only the social sector, or does it include all landlords?
Mr Baird:
In that context, it is clear that it means only social landlords, because it refers to a secure tenancy, which exists only in the social-rented sector. Therefore by definition, the landlords are those in the social sector.
The problem is that provisions concerning antisocial behaviour, and particularly the introductory tenancy provisions, do not hinge around the definition of "landlord" but on the concept of secure tenancies. Those exist only in the social-rented sector. Therefore an attempt to extend the introductory tenancy regime to private-sector landlords is meaningless, because the introductory tenancy is an alternative to a secure tenancy. If that were extended to private-sector landlords, it would be an alternative to the existing non-secure form of tenancy. It might even turn out to be more secure than the type of tenancy currently offered by private-sector landlords, so the purpose would be defeated.
There may be merit in examining other provisions, such as injunctions, and in streamlining the repossession procedures to determine whether they could be extended to private-sector landlords. We have not taken that into consideration because the original scope of the Bill was to target the social-rented sector; however, that might be possible. It would be as well to leave introductory tenancies as they are.
Mr Davidson:
Moreover, were such measures to be introduced at this time, private-sector landlords have not been consulted upon a provision in the Bill that suggests that they will be given new powers to seek injunctions. When this was put out for consultation they did not see fit to ask for those powers; nor did any of the organisations which represent private-sector landlords ask for those provisions to be changed.
Mr S Wilson:
One reason they did not ask was that they were scared stiff, for example, by the prospect of being responsible for the behaviour of some of their tenants. Some private-sector landlords are totally irresponsible, and they do not want to be held accountable or for anyone to be able to say that they could deal with a family who behaved in an antisocial way if they decided to take action. That is why they are not clamouring at your door. To give landlords those powers would also give them responsibility, which many of them do not want.
Mr Davidson:
Furthermore, these provisions simply give the Housing Executive and registered housing associations discretion to seek injunctions. If the provisions were amended to include private-sector landlords, they would use their discretion to behave in the same way as they currently behave. This law as it stands allows the Housing Executive and other social landlords to determine the instances in which they take positive action. It would not require private-sector landlords to do so if they did not wish. Those who take positive action may use these powers; however, others who do not want to take positive action — for whatever reason — will simply not be required to do so. There is no sanction on them.
Mr S Wilson:
Yes, but there is a difference. Sometimes the Housing Executive will be reluctant to take action against a tenant and will find excuses for not doing so. However, if the power to take action exists, public representatives can tell their constituents that something can be done. It may be decided not to exercise that power, but a lever exists to make them do something about it. If landlords do not have the ability to take action — discretion or no discretion — they can hold their hands up and say "Well, you can cry all you want".
Mr Carson:
Does the Committee want this clause extended to cover private-sector landlords? If so, I would be happy to take it away, work with the Minister and come back to the Committee.
Mr ONeill:
We have a wee bit of a problem with it. We have agreed that it is the Committee’s view and that we would like to see some degree of equality across all the sectors, to avoid a situation of three or four different standards in one street. I imagine that there will be a problem with the consultative element. If we do not allow the private sector to comment on the Bill it nullifies the process to some extent. However, I would be interested to hear what the response would be to the Committee’s view.
Mr Carson:
I would be happy to advise the Minister that the Committee would like to see that amended.
Mr S Wilson:
I see the distinction that is being made now. We are not dealing with secure tenancies. Mr Baird suggested that we should be looking at injunctions later on. Is that despite the fact that secure tenancies —
Mr Carson:
That is the point that I was going to take away in relation to injunctions in clause 21.
Clause 21 referred for further consideration.
Clause 22 (meaning of "harm")
The Chairperson:
There is one amendment to clause 22 in relation to racial harassment, suggested by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
Mr Davidson:
It is the Department’s view that we consider the term "ill-treatment" would cover something as serious as racial harassment and abuse and that an amendment to emphasise that fact is not necessary.
The Chairperson:
Do you think that there is sufficient provision in the Bill to cover that?
Mr Davidson:
The term "ill treatment" covers racial harassment and abuse; therefore there is no need to emphasise that.
Mr S Wilson:
If you isolate one kind of harassment or abuse, you make it more important than other issues. People may be persecuted for their religious views, their sexual orientation or the football team that they support. Where do you stop?
Mr ONeill:
We covered this last week in your absence, and we accepted the Department’s advice on it, subject to a note at some stage being made to the Housing Executive about the Macpherson Report and its definition.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 23 (Meaning of "dwelling-house")
The Chairperson:
There is one amendment, suggested by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, to clause 23 relating to travellers.
Mr Davidson:
The Equality Commission has said that the definition of dwelling should apply to traveller accommodation so that eligibility for grants can be extended. However, clause 23 does not deal with grants; it deals with the subject we have just discussed. The Equality Commission has misunderstood that.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
The Chairperson:
We shall now look at the clauses deferred in Part II, concerning grants for the renewal of private sector housing. The Committee has stated its support of discretionary grants rather than mandatory grants.
Mr ONeill:
We could save some time here. Some concern was expressed about how the grants section related to the status and future of the replacement grant, which is largely a rural grant. What are the Department’s views on that grant? Where does it sit in relation to any changes that might be made in the legislation? If it continues, will it be subject to a review?
Mr Davidson:
The replacement grant is presently allowed for in subordinate legislation on foot of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. The Bill does not change that. The replacement grant is a second option for the Housing Executive, having dismissed the renovation grant as the first option for providing a fit house for someone. Most of the criteria that apply to renovation grants also apply to replacement grants regarding types of houses, ownership, and so on. There is therefore no need to legislate in this Housing Bill for replacement grants; they are already there. In common with the other grants, apart from disability and disabled facilities grants, replacement grants will become discretionary. Since it is the second phase of a renovation grant proposal, it is natural that it should be replaced.
That does not change the circumstances in which the Housing Executive might offer someone a replacement grant. People currently get a replacement grant when their house cannot be renovated at all or without unreasonable expenditure.
Sir John Gorman:
That has worked very satisfactorily since the 1950s, so why change it?
Mr ONeill:
The second part of my question asked if the Department had any plans to examine that legislation.
Mr Davidson:
Yes. We shall not examine the legislation now, but we shall certainly do so with the Housing Executive and evaluate how well the replacement grant Regulations are working to target the right people. The matter is being review by the Housing Executive and the Department. However, if there is any change to that, it does not require a change in this Housing Bill because a replacement grant is provided for in subordinate legislation on foot of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992. That power will still be there.
Mr S Wilson:
If the grants are to be discretionary, does that enable the Housing Executive to do exactly what you are talking about?
Mr ONeill:
It was I who had reservations about all those grants clauses. In the light of that information and the clarity which it provided, you could move them all if you wished.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Perhaps I might ask a more general question about the grant scheme. Does it address lead and asbestos as the Scottish Bill does?
Mr Davidson:
Not specifically.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Would you consider doing something about it?
Mr Davidson:
If the Housing Executive found lead or asbestos in a property and felt that it was a health hazard or unfit for human habitation, it would be required to consider a renovation grant, replacement grant or whatever grants were appropriate. It is not mentioned specifically.
The Chairperson:
Before we go any further, clauses 46 to 79 cover the replacement of discretionary grants with mandatory grants. Should we propose to ditch those proposed amendments?
Mr Carson:
The Minister has agreed to a possible amendment. The Housing Executive has introduced a modest amendment to clause 52(3)(a).
The Chairperson:
We are not at clause 52. We are dealing with clauses 46 to 79 with the exception of 52.
Mr Carson:
I merely wanted to make you aware of the fact that we hope to amend clause 52(3).
The Chairperson:
We are not dealing with Clause 52. That was my mistake.
The Committee Clerk:
Let me clarify: where there is a single amendment dealing with the move from discretionary to mandatory —
The Chairperson:
We need a proposal that we dismiss the proposed amendments from 46 to 79 except on clause 52.
Mr B Hutchinson:
If we do that, we must bear in mind that the Housing Executive’s proposed amendment refers to 51(3).
The Committee Clerk:
Clauses 50, 51 and 52 are not affected by any decision that the Committee might take in relation to the proposed Shelter amendment dealing with mandatory and discretionary grants. The Chairperson is suggesting that the Committee dismiss the notion of amending the word "discretionary" to "mandatory" in those clauses. Afterwards the Committee can return to each clause in turn if there are any different amendments from other organisations.
Members indicated assent.
Clauses 50 to 52 referred for further consideration.
Clause 25 (Grants for improvements and repairs, & c.)
The Chairperson:
There are two suggested amendments, from the Equality Commission and the Lower Antrim Road Regeneration Initiative. We shall deal with the Equality Commission.
Mr S Wilson:
I assume that "all dwelling houses" refers to all dwellings. It does not matter who owns them or for what purpose. Providing it is a dwelling house, the grants system will apply. I just cannot understand why these things —
The Chairperson:
We must go through these.
Mr Davidson:
I have provided the Committee with a synopsis of the Department’s views on all these amendments. If there are any doubts or any clarification is needed, I am happy to take any questions. However, if travellers are in a dwelling that is not their own private dwelling — a caravan, mobile home or social housing — social housing does not acquire grants.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content that we dismiss the suggested amendment from the Equality Commission?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We move to the Lower Antrim Road Regeneration Initiative’s amendment.
Mr Davidson:
Our synopsis is that it would like to move from a mandatory to a discretionary grants system. However, it thinks that a "worst first" policy should be adopted. That would be a matter for the Housing Executive. It can adopt that attitude within a discretionary scheme more so than within a mandatory scheme.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the Lower Antrim Road Regeneration Initiative’s suggested amendment?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 26 (Applications for grants)
The Chairperson:
We must deal with the Disability Action amendment.
Mr Davidson:
Its comments concern the difficulties in engaging with an affordable contractor, and it states that the amount of grant often does not cover the cost of the work. Our position is that if there is difficulty in engaging a contractor to do the work at a price close to what the Housing Executive feels is the value of that work, remedial action is an administrative matter for the Housing Executive. It is not something that one would include in the Housing Bill. The Housing Executive should consider the process it uses to come up with its notional estimate of the cost of the work, which is used as a benchmark.
The Chairperson:
Are we agreed to dismiss the suggested amendment?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
We move to the suggested amendment from the Lower Antrim Road Regeneration Initiative.
Mr S Wilson:
That should be dismissed because it is the same as the last amendment.
The Chairperson:
Are members content to dismiss the suggested amendment?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 27 (Ineligible applicants)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss Shelter’s suggested amendment?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendment by the Lower Antrim Road Regeneration Initiative on the Part II grants scheme — the proposal for a "worst first" policy?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 28 (The age of the property)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss both the suggested amendments to clause 28?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 29 (Excluded description of works)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments to clause 29?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 30 (Renovation grants: owner’s applications and tenant’s applications)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments to clause 30?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 31 (Renovation grants: certificates required in case of owner’s application)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments to clause 31?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 32 (Renovation grants: certificates required in case of tenant’s application)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the amendments to clause 31?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 33 (Renovation grants: purposes for which grants may be given)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the three suggested amendments to clause 33?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 34 (Renovation grants: approval of application)
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments to clause 34?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 35 (Common parts grants: occupation of flats by occupying tenants)
Mr Davidson:
Our position on the amendment from the Equality Commission is that workspace is outside the purposes of the grant scheme, in particular the common parts grant, which it refers to. There is no case for an amendment to clauses 35 to 39.
The Chairperson:
Is the Committee content to dismiss the suggested amendments on clause 35?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 36 (Common parts grants: landlord’s and tenants’ applications)
The Chairperson:
The Equality Commission commented on clause 36 with regard to a task force.
Mr Davidson:
I am sorry. I do not have sight of the Equality Commission’s comments on clause 36.
The Chairperson:
The Equality Commission recommends that
"landlords should not be allowed to withhold consent unreasonably for a disabled person making changes to the physical features of premises".
Mr Carson:
That is not really an issue for legislation. In fact, the legislation does not mention the landlord’s consent being required.
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the three suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 37 (Common parts grants: certificates required to accompany application)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 38 (Common part grants: purposes for which grant may be given)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 39 (Common parts grants: approval of application)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 40 (Disabled facilities grants: owner’s and tenant’s applications)
Mr B Hutchinson:
May we have a response to this clause?
Mr Davidson:
This is the abolition of the means test if a disabled facilities grant were to be beneficial to a child. In those circumstances, to provide for the abolition of the means test would be contrary to the principle of targeting resources at those most in need. There is no case for an amendment to the Bill. We would be paying 100% disabled facilities grants to people who could afford to do the work. That is contrary to targeting those most in need, which is a principle of the grants scheme and other housing policies.
Mr S Wilson:
It is also contrary to the Committee’s position on discretionary grants.
The Chairperson:
It is also contrary to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s position.
Mr Davidson:
We have proofed the clause against human rights considerations.
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 41 (Disabled facilities grants: the disabled occupant)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 42 (Disabled facilities grants: certificate required in case of owner’s application)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 43 (Disabled facilities grants: certificates required in case of tenant’s application)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 44 (Disabled facilities grants: purposes for which grant must or may be given)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.
Clause 45 (Disabled facilities grants: approval of application)
The Chairperson:
Does the Committee wish to dismiss the suggested amendments?
Members indicated assent.
Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.