Paul Frew
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct.”
“In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC.”
“That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again.”
“The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court. <BR /> <BR />Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing th…”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now.”
“Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,736 lines we hold for Paul Frew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 33 of 75.
“Why seven months? Why eight years? <BR /> <BR />Of course, there are screeching brakes again:”
“Clause 11 is another rescue clause, amendments to which had been tabled by the Minister's party colleague. To be fair to the Minister, she said that that would have to be worked on. Let us place that on record. The amendment takes away some of the confusion and ridiculous time periods. Instead of six tiers, we now have four. I am on record as supporting the principle around tiers. I have no problem with that, but I am not happy with the complication for tenant and landlord and the time period. We are still talking about:”
“Not only do we hear screeching brakes, but we see a U-turn by the Minister and Sinn Féin. Lest anybody be under any illusion: this is a complete reversal of Gerry Carroll's amendment. <BR /> <BR />Do not try to fool the people. It does not matter when the election is; you should never try to fool the people. People face massive hikes in the cost of living, not only for energy, fuel, petrol and heating oil but for food. Do not try to fool people. Do not treat them as fools with your party stunts and theatrics in the Chamber. You know exactly what you voted for. The parties who stayed quiet knew exactly what they were doing. We forced the Division Bells to ring, yet, across the Chamber, we saw the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. That will not go unnoticed. A light must be shone on it. <BR /> <BR />I will move to amendment No 5.”
“Wow. That is quite a big turnaround; six months. I commend the Department. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (9) states:”
“of the two things that I just read out. We hear screeching brakes from the Communities Minister. What will she tell her constituents? What will Sinn Féin tell its constituents in West Belfast now? <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (7) states:”
“All of a sudden, we have gone from a 10% cut in rent and a three-year freeze, which Sinn Féin voted for, to now seeing:”
“That is the only reference that I see to clause 7's rent decreases under article 5C. The 90% is the only nod to the 10% cut. However, when you read on down that amendment, you see exactly what the Department and Minister are trying to do. It will be interesting to see what her party does in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph (6) states:”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, with all this populist stuff, you would think that an election was coming around the corner in two months' time. <BR /> <BR />I will get on to the amendments. My colleague mentioned screeching brakes, and you can hear them jumping out of the Marshalled List. You can hear the brakes screeching when you read the amendments. Amendment No 1 is to clause 7, page 8, line 18. This amendment is nothing more than a rescue amendment, and I am sure that it is something that the Department did not want to do. We are now in a position where the Department has to move, which it did not want to do, because of a shambles by the party opposite.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let it be noted by the other parties in the House, and let them be warned: when it is time to cheep up, you cheep up; you speak up. You cannot say one thing in a debate and then sit on your hands and keep your mouth shut. We will not be a battering ram for any party to play populist politics with. That is not going to happen, and people should be aware of that.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I will get on to the screeching brakes, because that is exactly what these amendments are. Let nobody be confused if a politician knocks on the door of somebody living in West Belfast. Gerry Carroll tabled his amendment because he believed in what he was doing. I do not agree with him and I did not support the amendment, but I understand his party, his politics and the part of the spectrum that he is on. As I said at Consideration Stage, he can go round and say that he tried to get people a 10% decrease in their rent. Sinn Féin, however, cannot, and how dare it say that it would try? It has tried, but it fell well short. Not only did it fall well short, but it nearly scuppered a Bill that would actually add protections and raise standards in the private rented sector.”
“Every single person in this room heard the Minister speak that day — even members of her party — and yet this amendment passed on the shout of People Before Profit and Sinn Féin. If you were a student of politics, would you not spend hours going over that to see what went wrong?”
“I will finish with this quote from the Minister:”
“When Mr Carroll made an intervention to seek clarification from the Minister, the Minister came back with:”
“Housing Rights have told us that; they could have told us that before the debate.”
“The Minister warned her own party about the ramifications of supporting the amendment. She went on:”
“That is what Sinn Féin voted for. The Minister warned:”
“For a 10% cut in rent and a freeze for three years thereafter, not exceeding the level on which rents now sit. That is what the party opposite voted for when it supported Gerry Carroll's amendment. As I said at that stage, I understand why Gerry Carroll moved the amendment. That is his politics; it is in his political DNA. I understand that. It is where he is in the political spectrum. It is probably where Sinn Féin is, too, in the political spectrum. They were so spooked by the one Member proposing this amendment that they got themselves in such a muddle that the Minister said one thing and the party did the other. What a shambles. <BR /> <BR />The Minister warned us that day. She warned her own party. The most common word she used was "concern". I quote:”
“When they saw the danger, they contacted us all straight away. Some Members were contacted, even before the Bill was debated, about the problems with what the Bill is now designed to do. They have worked tirelessly to try to rescue the situation, as has the Department for Communities' officials. I give them credit for that. The Department has been placed in a nearly impossible position because of petty party politics all centred around West Belfast. That is ultimately what we saw play out in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago. The Minister said one thing, but her party did another. She said one thing and then kept shtum, stayed quiet, when it came to the vote, while the party behind her shouted "Aye". <BR /> <BR />What were they shouting "aye" for?”
“Wow: if you are a student of politics or media, the curriculum that you could study about politics in this place has certainly been added to. <BR /> <BR />Lest anyone be in any doubt, there was no mistake at Consideration Stage. People knew exactly what they were doing. No one was asleep at the wheel, because everyone in the Chamber had worked on this for months. People in this room knew exactly what they were doing, so they should own the consequences, not only because they had worked on it for months beforehand, in Committee and outside it, but because the Minister for Communities warned us, as she has done today. The Minister said today that it is impossible to proceed as the Bill stands and that housing campaigners are really concerned. <BR /> <BR />The work of Housing Rights is commendable.”
“Given the moves that have been made in GB, particularly in England, to provide rate relief so that more people can be caught in schemes and given support, has the Minister had any discussions with the Finance Minister about giving rate relief for energy costs?”
“<BR /> <BR />Remember, at the heart of this are people and families in real pain, savings lost, houses gone, homes destroyed and lives in ruins. We should always be mindful of that when it comes to the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Bill and any further legislation that comes in the new place and at a new time.”
“<BR /> <BR />More work has to be done on the code of practice to ensure that it is fit for purpose and robust. It should not penalise anyone unfairly, including businesses, and it must not be ineffective in safeguarding people who have an addictive attraction to gambling. It is that balance that the code of practice should achieve: helping people with addiction and ensuring that it is effective. It should be effective in bringing to light, stopping and being able to punish bad practices, and it should be effective and efficient for everyone in the business. That is really important to me. If we do not get that balance right in the code of practice, it might have an adverse effect, and that effect could drive things underground, meaning that there would be no protection for those with an addictive attraction to gambling.”
“It is right that there are real consequences for bookmakers and, of course, bingo halls, registered clubs and lotteries. I thank the Minister for her amendment to tidy that up. There should be real consequences for anyone who does not treat people in the safest way possible in the business that they conduct. Everyone has a duty of care, no matter what business you are in or how you take money off people. Whether it is by selling wares or providing entertainment through gambling, you should have a duty of care, and it is important that such codes of practice are adhered to. It is also important that the code is agreed by everyone in the industry, including bookmakers. It is important that they have a say in the code of practice that they will have to administer and adhere to.”
“The flashing lights in those dark rooms draw young people to gaming machines. Sometimes, gaming machines are the start and can lead on to other things. You can lose a lot of money very quickly through a gaming machine, so I am alarmed at some of the tariffs, if you like, and some of the winnings that you can get, which entice young people to use them. There has to be more awareness of that. I worry about that, and I look forward to seeing, in a new place and at a new time, further legislation in that regard. To me, that will be the bigger, wider piece, and it will be the real prize. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 concerns a code of practice and revoking licences. It is a wish of my party and, of course, the Committee to have a code of practice with teeth that cannot be ignored.”
“I rise to speak on the Minister's amendments. Again, I thank her and her Department for listening to and working with the Committee through a lot of detail. Some of the scrutiny was quite detailed, and I put on record my thanks to the Minister's officials, who often attended the Committee to discuss and go through each aspect of the Bill and the amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 is about gaming machines in different premises. It is required to tidy up the legislation and the amendments made at Consideration Stage. We all share concerns about gaming machines. It is a form of gambling that is in your face.”
“If they want to pay by another means, so be it. To me, that strikes the best balance to achieve the best protection for tenants and landlords. That is important. So I welcome new clause 11A in amendment No 22 and all the other amendments that go with that, including amendment No 23 and amendment No 24, which is a commencement amendment.”
“I am deeply concerned that the first consultation took place after the Bill had been produced, and now we are going to rush to implement the findings of that consultation and incorporate them in the Bill. It just seems to me to be rushed, maybe even perverse. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 introduces a new clause. I welcome it and thank the Minister and the Department for tabling it. It goes back to the point that my colleague Trevor Clarke raised about the means to pay and the payment options. Whilst the Committee thought that, perhaps, we should ban cash payments altogether, we came to a position where the best that we could do was provide options for tenants and to ensure that they will always be offered options to pay. If they want to pay in cash, so be it. If they want to pay by bank order, so be it.”
“I do not know whether that is wise government, especially when there is going to be a second phase and another look at private tenancies on a wider basis. So I urge caution. It seems strange that I am saying that because I usually want to see decisionism. I want to see Ministers and Departments make decisions, but when you have gone to the trouble of doing a consultation, why not take the time to study the findings? Why would you rush something that will probably end up being very complicated and will have a massive impact on the landlord sector and tenants in their homes and on the fact that the private rented sector is growing daily. I am not sure that that is wise, especially when we know that there is another phase coming.”
“However, the point is that, even if you do an eight-week consultation in the middle of the scrutiny of the Bill and its legislative stages, and you find and collate that information from the consultation, we have not had time to consider the consultation findings in the Committee. Yet the Department is considering tabling amendments — maybe it has changed its mind and it is not — halfway through the Bill's legislative stages on findings that it has only just collated. <BR /> <BR />Cogs of government usually turn far too slowly for my liking, but I do not know of any other eight-week consultation that has been turned round so quickly in order to meet the target of a Further Consideration Stage of a Bill.”
“A landlord does not really want to have an empty house lying with no heating on and no one living in it, because that will have an impact on the house and the rooms in it. A house — a home — needs to be lived in. Therefore, there are real issues with the amendments. <BR /> <BR />You know me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not usually take pleasure in criticising any Department. However, the Bill was produced and it got to Committee Stage. At that stage, we were told that there was a consultation on the very issue of notices to quit. That strikes me as being the wrong way round. You could make excuses by saying that we are coming to the end of the mandate and want the best piece of legislation that we can produce. I get that.”
“That is my point exactly, and I thank the Member for making it for me. That is why I cannot support that amendment. It does not apply balance or give protection. The Member will know that, when you are offered a house, you have a certain amount of time in which to accept it. So there is a real dilemma. Then, once you have accepted it, you will have a certain amount of time in which to move in. I know that there are protections and that you can usually work with social housing and other landlords, but there are no guarantees, especially if the choice is between two private tenancies and you are moving to the cheaper of the two. There could be a real issue for the tenant as to whether they accept the house and, if they do, when they move in.”
“It strikes me that you are going into three quarters of a month there.”
“I cannot work out the logic with regard to the time durations, both of the tenancies and the notice to quit periods. Of course, then, I cannot support the amendments that flow from that or amendment No 19, because it is the same concept. I get the concept that there should be a difference between the provisions for tenants and landlords with regard to the notice to quit period and that there should be more protection for the tenant because it is their home, as opposed to being just a property. However, again, it does not really make sense to me that, as per amendment No 19, the notice to quit period should be:”
“It seems to me that seven and a half months is far too long. Six and a half months is probably far too long. Why is it 196 days and 224 days? As a Member alluded to earlier, maybe that is the policy down South. Maybe that is the way it works down South: I do not know. It strikes me as really strange that, although the Minister is proposing the Bill and one of her colleagues has tabled these amendments, there seems to be an issue and the Minister is saying, "If this is passed, the Department will have to do a lot more work on this". To me, it smacks of Sinn Féin in the South showing some teeth and flexing some muscle up here. The Minister is resisting that, and it is probably right that she does so. <BR /> <BR />So I will not support amendment No 15. Whilst I understand the logic and the sentiment behind it, it is too complicated.”
“Why are we talking about days rather than weeks or months?”
“There are tiers for tenancies up to six months, one year, three years, seven years, eight years and eight years or more. That is too tiered. The durations are 28 days; 90 days, which, it is easy enough to work out, even for my primitive mind, is three months; 120 days, which is — I am getting good at this — four months; and 180 days, which is six months. We then hit 196 days. My mental maths are not great, but I think that that is about six and a half months. There is then 224 days, which is seven and a half months. How would you work out rent for that period, and, let us be honest, how would you be assured of getting that half month's rent? <BR /> <BR />While I understand the concept of tiered duration for notices to quit, I cannot for the life of me work out why we have those specific numbers of days.”
“That might be a novel concept, and not many will have spoken about it. There are people out there who do not pay their rent in a timely fashion. Should they have the same rights? Should they have the same notice to quit? I argue that they should not. We then get into the question of what diminished rights they should have and which rights should be diminished. Surely a notice to quit is one of the rights that should be considered. If landlords have tenants who are not paying their rent, they will have to give them a notice to quit, which could be 12 weeks or it could be seven and a half months. Will any landlord lie out seven and a half months without rent? There are real issues here. <BR /> <BR />There are six tiers listed in amendment No 15. That is too many.”
“There is also the issue of antisocial behaviour, which my colleague Trevor Clarke raised. How many of us are plagued — our constituents are certainly plagued — by antisocial behaviour or problem tenants? They exist. They are real, and you have only to live beside one to know that they are real. It will destroy your life. It will destroy your home life. It will destroy your private life. You will have no privacy. The noise will be intolerable. You will not be able to rest in your sitting room. You will not be able to enjoy your kitchen. You will not be able to sleep in your bed. That is how bad it gets for some of our constituents who have problem tenants living beside them. <BR /> <BR />There should be exemptions for not only antisocial behaviour but failure to pay rent.”
“While we want to add protection, we need to ensure that we do not cause the consequence for tenants of being hit with two rents because of the duration of the notice period.”
“I get the difference between landlord notice and tenant notice. As I said, landlords own property — the house — but tenants live in a home, and it is their only home. I get that, but there are consequences. If we extend notices to quit and tenants in the private rented sector move on — the chances are that it will be to a Housing Executive property, a housing association property or another private landlord's property — they could be stuck in the middle if they have not yet forgone their previous home but have just moved or are just about to move into their new home. There could be double jeopardy that could wipe out any savings that they have. There is real danger in lengthening notices to quit.”
“It is tiered to the point that I do not believe that it is workable or that it could be managed in a beneficial way. I accept the concept, however, so I am happy and content to work through it to see what can be done in a tiered fashion. <BR /> <BR />As the Bill sits, more than eight weeks' — two months' — notice has to be given for a tenancy of one to 10 years. The notice to quit by a tenant of one to ten years is four weeks, and, for more than 10 years, it is 12 weeks' — three months' — notice.”
“A market does what a market does, and that will be different in every area of Northern Ireland. It will probably be different half a mile down the road from any particular area, given our housing state, our geographical area and the spread of our affluent areas and working-class areas. There is a patchwork of people living in our towns and villages. I cannot support amendment No 13. <BR /> <BR />That moves me on to Ciara Ferguson's amendments. I have enjoyed my time working with Ciara on the Committee. She knows that I have toyed with the idea of a tiered notice to quit. I get the concept; I really do. I am still not there on how tiered it should be, but it strikes me that this proposal is just too complicated. It is too tiered.”
“It strikes me that the one way to leave a property insecure is for the Government and MLAs to do something like making the amendment, which would decrease rent and distort the market so much and in such a blunt way that it could cause havoc throughout a growing sector that provides homes for our people, usually for the people who need those homes most. <BR /> <BR />Almost half — 48% — of those living in the private rented sector receive state financial support via housing benefit or universal credit. It might sound perverse to some, especially the left-leaning political philosophers here, that decreasing rent would not be a good idea, but I see so much danger of that leaving those tenants most vulnerable. Therefore, while I understand the sentiment and the politics, there is no way that I can support an amendment like that.”
“For the large number of landlords in that position, a 10% decrease would probably be the difference between achieving their lifetime goal of having money from their assets to retire on and selling that property because they just cannot make it work. That will probably be one of the most devastating impacts and consequences, should the amendment pass. Those homes would be sold. Who would buy them? Who would live in them? It is true that, for any landlord, it is property but, for the tenant, it is their home.”
“Yes. Distortion of the market is highly probable, which would make things worse for tenants in the long run. <BR /> <BR />Let me flip that over to the other side and talk about landlords. There is a wide spectrum of landlords in this country. There are landlords who look to the future and put all of their savings into property. It is their right to do that. With all that money going into property — all their savings going into property — they provide a good outlet for the state by producing homes. A good lot of those landlords, however, are mortgaged to the hilt. The rent and probably a wee bit more covers their mortgage and the maintenance.”
“My goodness, it will be useful when he drives around the good people of West Belfast and is able to say that he tried to achieve a 10% decrease in people's rent but the big bad Sinn Féin Minister stopped him. I get where the Member is coming from. However, to propose something as primitive and blunt as a 10% decrease across the board in the private tenancy sector but in no other sector is unfair. That is the first thing. Where is the equality in that? Secondly, that 10% will be worth a lot more in some areas than in others. In those other areas it will create affordability issues. Some areas are working-class, and some are more affluent. That 10% may be a lot more achievable in some areas than in others.”
“I welcome the Minister's amendment Nos 1 to 12. They were sought by the Committee, and I thank the Minister for listening to us on the matter. <BR /> <BR />I understand why clause 7 is needed. It makes up one of the biggest bulks of the Bill. Rent increases are always problematic for anyone in any walk of life. We should raise standards, inject fairness and try to achieve balance with the Bill, but we should not distort the market. That could have deadly consequences for tenants and landlords. <BR /> <BR />I move on to Gerry Carroll's amendment, which is amendment No 13. I understand its sentiment, the gentleman's politics and why he would propose an amendment like this.”
“It strikes me with fear to think that that may well be taking place. Whilst we know that the vast majority of landlords and tenants do things honourably, there is room and potential for things to go wrong and for mistakes to be made in cash transactions, so we need to do everything that we can in the Bill to protect that transaction. <BR /> <BR />It should of course be the case that a receipt is issued for any cash transaction and that it is given at an appropriate time. That should be the case not only for rent but for all cash transactions, whatever they may be, such as joint ventures on improvements or other aspects of the tenancy. If any cash is handed over, it must be exchanged for a detailed receipt that itemises the amounts that are on it and specifies what each amount is for. That is critical.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. I will come on to it later in relation to the new clause in amendment No 22, because it assists with that issue. <BR /> <BR />We got the point in the Committee, after we went through it in conversation with officials, other stakeholders and interest groups. There are times when cash is handed over, and there will be times when that happens at inappropriate and inconvenient moments. There will, then, be times when the landlord or the landlord's agent will not be able to produce or pluck out a receipt there and then, yet the tenant may well insist on handing over cash. I get that, because that is a human interaction. It took me a wee while to get my head around the issue. If I were a tenant, I really would not want to hand over cash and have no proof of that exchange or transaction.”
“Early on, I was struck by clause 3, "Tenant to be provided with a rent receipt for payment in cash". My first question was this: why is anyone having to pay in cash? It strikes me that, with the professional relationship between tenant and landlord, the last thing that you would want to do is to hand over cash. Is there ever an occasion on which it would be appropriate to accept cash but not give a receipt?”