Alex Maskey
West Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“First, I thank the Minister for making an absolute pledge of non-interference by him as the Minister of Finance. I note that he has asked others to do likewise.”
“I think that it has been made very clear that you can legislate, set up institutions and all the rest of it within a particular framework, but, if people chose and choose not to embrace the principles and concepts, it will not work.”
“I appreciate that the Member was not here last February, so she had no role in the last discussions, but she needs to be aware that her party voted against the proposal to close the scheme in February 2016. That is the reality; that is a fact.”
“Over the last number of years, we have all been challenged in the things that we had to do and in the agreements that we had to reach and were challenged to adhere to. Nevertheless, when people have worked in the spirit of partnership and sharing power, this place and this and previous Executives have produced much better work.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I really did not want to interrupt, because I know that he is passionate about the points that he is making. If I remember correctly, the Ulster Unionist Party leader said a couple of months ago that, if the Good Friday Agreement was up for debate now, the party would not support it.”
“A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, I also wish you well in the time ahead as a republican activist. <BR /> <BR />It is fairly ironic in its own way that, in the last hours of this Assembly, we are debating the principles and values of the Good Friday Agreement.”
The complete record
Every one of 704 lines we hold for Alex Maskey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 15.
“Rather than making statements that, in my view, are empty rhetoric, I will make it clear that the people who were involved in this recent negotiation have secured important flexibilities in respect of universal credit and so on. They have secured very important financial protections for those who will suffer the bigger loss from some of the cuts being imposed to the tune of half a billion pounds over the next four years. We can be reasonably satisfied that we have secured that. There is no other similar system or mitigation measure in place in England, Scotland or Wales. To that extent, we can be grateful that we have managed to secure that here. We represent people here; we do not represent people anywhere else.”
“A lot of us can be quite satisfied — I would not say "pleased" — that we have done our best to ensure that we have lessened the burden as best we can in the face of an unfettered Tory Government being elected in Britain with, unfortunately, a mandate to cut benefits and public services. That is their mandate, and it is worth reminding ourselves of that. We will all argue that no one in this society in the North — the Six Counties — approved that mandate. I am glad to say that, widespread throughout civic society, people here lobbied the political parties hard to do our best to blunt the worst excesses of the cuts coming from the Tory Government. I am satisfied that we have managed to do that.”
“I totally agree with the Member. It is worth reminding ourselves that the measures recommended by Professor Eileen Evason's panel represent around £8 million, which is no small amount of money in the scheme of things. Five million pounds of that will be directly allocated through district council advice centres, and the independent sector is in there. The remainder will be distributed at a regional level to the bigger organisations. That has to be tailored to meet the need — in other words, to ensure that all that money goes to the front line of advising people who may well be affected by the changes and some of the cuts in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the regulations. None of us wants to see any of the cuts being imposed on people.”
“I am not even arguing that the Lib Dems, who were with them previously, did any blunting.”
“I am pleased to say that I have spoken to the mitigations panel, to trade union representatives and to a lot of people in the community and voluntary sector and no one wants the cuts imposed. Everybody accepts that they are being imposed by London, and most people will welcome the fact that parties here came together in negotiations and fought a long, hard battle to make sure that we blunted the worst excesses of the cuts coming down the track from London. <BR /> <BR />Further cuts will be brought in by the British Government, as we heard even over the last weekend, and they are still considering new ways of punishing the poor. We know, regrettably in our view, that the current British Government were elected with a mandate, and they are an unfettered Tory Administration.”
“We have also made sure that things will be less onerous for single parents who, for example, apply for jobs, due to the fact that our circumstances here are fundamentally different than they are in Britain. <BR /> <BR />It is on that basis that my party wants to support these measures this afternoon. It is an absolute nonsense to tell people out there that welfare powers have been given over to the British Government. Everybody here knows that the British Government have the ultimate power over welfare issues here. They did threaten to introduce, and were on the point of introducing, a welfare reform Bill just a few months ago. People can choose to ignore that if they wish, but it is a hard reality.”
“I have heard people in the Chamber talking in terms of how they had great friends in Lord Freud and in all the rest, and that he was a great listener. I met Lord Freud in his office in London on more than one occasion, and I can assure anybody that there was no quick fix or easy rollover from him or anybody else, no matter how good a listener they indicated they were or wanted to be. So, none of those flexibilities, which were secured through negotiation, were delivered easily or conceded easily. They were hard fought for and hard won, and I am glad that we have them. <BR /> <BR />We also secured very important limitations on the sanction regime that the British Government wanted to impose as well. We have taken off the worst of the sanctions that are being imposed in England, Scotland and Wales.”
“That, of course, will add to the range of flexibilities that we previously secured. Those were flexibilities that we had been asked for, and had been lobbied for, and which many of the parties in the Chamber here agreed to fight for. They included split payments, fortnightly payments, and payments for rent being paid directly to landlords. All of those very important measures will alleviate the burdens of people facing the cuts and restrictions that the British Government initially wanted to impose on people here. Therefore, it was very important to have secured those mitigations and flexibilities some time ago. <BR /> <BR />I do not think that any party in the House could deny how difficult a job it was to secure that range of flexibilities in the first instance.”
“Some may choose to ignore that, but the reality is that the British Government are responsible for welfare. We had it transferred here within very narrow confines, and we understand the principle of parity, which, essentially, boils down to the British Government saying that if we want to do anything different in terms of welfare we will have to get their agreement and pay for it ourselves. That is precisely what has been done in this case through the Fresh Start Agreement. <BR /> <BR />I think it is important that we remind the House that we have secured an additional £500 million of funding which we will put towards front-line public services. We also secured a budget of £585 million from within our own grant, which was set aside for very important mitigation measures.”
“The point is that we had a panel of experts, which we agreed would, hopefully, depoliticise the argument so that none of the measures being recommended or introduced would be subject to party political haggling. <BR /> <BR />To the credit of the then First Minister and deputy First Minister they agreed, in advance, to endorse and implement the recommendations produced by the panel led by Eileen Evason. I do not think that anyone could level any criticism against that panel of experts. The panel did a lot of hard work and I want to place on record my commendation to them for taking on the onerous task and coming up with very fair recommendations designed to blunt the worst aspects of the Tory cuts coming from London. <BR /> <BR />We all accept that these cuts have been imposed by London.”
“<BR /> <BR />Crucially — I think that it was very important here — a panel of experts, led by Professor Eileen Evason, was established and asked to examine the measures that might be required to ease the burden for people who have a number of children, low-income families, the disabled, the sick and so on and so forth. The expert panel was asked to look at how best they could use the money that we secured for a mitigation package. For me, the most important aspect of this is that the panel are experts in welfare and benefits: they are not party political hacks or people with a view. Whether that view is legitimate is not the point.”
“Not everybody in the House signed up to it, but I would simply say that a lot of what I have heard so far, over the last year or two, and certainly within the last number of months, is favourable, despite the fact that, just a few months ago, this Assembly was on the point of collapse on one particular key issue. That was failure to reach agreement on the welfare cuts that were being imposed by the British Government, but we reached an agreement. We have the institutions. Critically, in the context of the discussion this afternoon, that agreement reached a mitigation package — "an envelope", as people describe it — of £585 million over four years. That will be formally reviewed within three years, to check whether we are doing the right thing or need to do more. That will be evidence for another day's discussion.”
“In the context of these welfare payment measures this afternoon, they are also to make sure that people are fully aware of the mitigation measures — the payments that they will be entitled to — as a result of the Fresh Start Agreement. <BR /> <BR />Chair, with your indulgence, I will now speak as a member of Sinn Féin and an MLA, having made my earlier remarks as Chairperson of the Social Development Committee. Again, I welcome the measures tabled this afternoon. These measures obviously represent the product of an agreement that was fought for long and hard.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Social Security Agency is undertaking a comprehensive range of actions, from advertising on TV and in the local media to briefing advice workers right across the Six Counties. It is working with all the disability advocate organisations to ensure that any transitioning from disability living allowance (DLA) to personal independence payment (PIP) is done in a way that does not further harm, hinder, hurt or traumatise people who have been affected in various ways through particular illnesses or disability. So, a very comprehensive range of measures is absolutely being undertaken by the Social Security Agency to advise the public as to how the changes may impact on them.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 3 March 2016, the Committee received a briefing from the Social Security Agency on the proposed regulations, and it was agreed that the Committee was content for the rule to be made. It subsequently considered the statutory rule at its meeting on 10 March 2016, and there were no objections raised by members of the Committee. Indeed, we had a presentation at the same meeting from the Social Security Agency, which outlined a comprehensive range of measures that it is undertaking, in conjunction with the independent advice sector, to make sure that everyone who may be affected by the changes — as I said, the biggest changes in 70-odd years — is aware.”
“The intent of these particular rules is to alleviate the reduction in benefits incurred as a result of the introduction of the benefit cap and time-limiting of contribution-based employment and support allowance, which is due to be introduced here from 31 May 2016. Latest estimates indicate that it will affect around 400 households. That is a very important, necessary and welcome mitigation measure. Similarly, mitigation payments will be available to claimants of contribution-based employment and support allowance on the day on which the new time-limiting provision comes into operation. This, we understand, is expected to be in October/November 2016.”
“<BR /> <BR />Discussions moved from the policy arena to the political arena, eventually emerging in the Stormont House Agreement and subsequently the Fresh Start Agreement. Following the Fresh Start Agreement, the Committee received a briefing, on 4 February 2016, on the recommendations of the working group on welfare reform mitigations, led by Professor Eileen Evason and her team. It was agreed that the recommendations of the working group would be fully implemented. In order to do this, secondary legislation is, of course, required. <BR /> <BR />The statutory rules being considered today are the first of a number of packages of such rules, as the Minister mentioned, that will underpin the agreed mitigation measures.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the House. <BR /> <BR />Members are very aware that the forthcoming reform of our welfare system will be the biggest change to our benefit and tax credit system in over 70 years. From its initial consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill, which concluded in February 2013, the Committee for Social Development, like all Members of the House and numerous stakeholders, was particularly concerned about how such radical reform would impact on the most vulnerable people in our society. It has been a long process to agreeing a way forward on welfare, and, admittedly, there has been much disagreement along the way.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that the need to move very efficiently and effectively to ban such harmful substances is very important indeed?”
“We wasted a considerable amount of time because of what many of us believe was a narrow political agenda. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister cannot make commitments because he may not be the next Minister or whatever. Nevertheless, from his point of view, given the experience that he has garnered as the Minister for Social Development, can he assure us that social housing providers will remain in public ownership?”
“The Department was given authority by the Executive in February 2013 to explore options. I suggest that, under the helm of the first Minister to look at it, Nelson McCausland, we wasted —”
“I ask the Minister to make sure that we move forward, and the Minister has made it clear that there will require to be political agreement at Executive level on the future of the issue. Therefore, our party is placing it on record again today that there needs to be the retention of the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive needs to be able to get the right to borrow not only to maintain property but to build. The Housing Executive must become a provider as well as just a landlord, and our party will bring that to the table in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I very much recognise what the Minister said in his statement about the context of the cost to the public purse; none of us is oblivious to all of that. We are aware that there are major challenges.”
“He has had two predecessors, so my remarks for the most part will be historical as opposed to being in the context of the current Minister, who I have worked with in the last number of weeks. Anything that the Minister has committed to do, he has done with aplomb, and I commend him for that. I very much welcome the essence of the statement, and I think that all of the members of the Social Development Committee will do likewise. <BR /> <BR />I move on to speak on behalf of my party, Sinn Féin, as an MLA. It is important to recognise that the essence of the statement is a recognition of the need to retain the Housing Executive as a provider of social housing. I very much welcome that in the statement, although I do want to see the situation moving from hope to intent.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's statement, which is very important, in so far as it addresses the need for a formal resolution to the question of the future provision of social housing. The Minister will become aware in the next week or so that the Social Development Committee has, of course, had a clear focus on the need for the provision of social housing throughout this mandate. We have also included in our legacy report a call to the incoming Department for Communities to address the issue as a matter of urgency, not least in the context of the long-standing list of people in housing stress and the recurring problems associated with homelessness. Although the Minister has addressed that in recent weeks, I am conscious of the fact that the Minister has only been in post for a very short time.”
“I thank the First Minister and the junior Minister for that response. At this stage, does the junior Minister have any further information on the follow-on community relations activities in the likes of West Belfast, which is my constituency? It might be a bit early to have drilled down and got information on that.”
“I thank the Minister for that quite comprehensive response. Is he in a position to give us any further information on the policy commitment to support and give additional flexibility to young people who may have disabilities or caring commitments or are leaving care?”
“I thank the junior Minister for her responses so far. Can she elaborate any further on any specific issues that have been raised in the consultation?”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me say, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, with your indulgence, that it would be remiss of me, when we are talking about sporting stadiums, not to congratulate Carl Frampton, who today is now the WBA and IBF super-bantamweight world champion. That is a great credit to him, his family and the people here whom he comes from. On behalf of everybody here, I offer our congratulations to Carl and give our best wishes to him and his wife, Christine, and their family so that they may live long to enjoy continued and further success.”
“The Committee for Social Development has discussed that on a number of occasions throughout this mandate, and it is fair to say that it expected that it would have been able to consider a Bill on licensing reform long before now. Indeed, we thought that it might have been on its way about two years ago, but, for whatever reason, that never happened. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee — this point has been made very clear — I encourage whoever the Minister is in the incoming Department for Communities in the next mandate to bring forward comprehensive licensing legislation so that we can deal with the licensing law in a comprehensive and mature fashion. On that basis, the Social Development Committee supports the Bill.”
“The inclusion of the word "sporting", for example, helps to clarify in the minds of many of us the type of event that can take place in an outdoor stadium. Amendment No 11 was considered by the Committee and simply states the date on which the Act comes into operation. Amendment Nos 12 and 13 address an issue relating to negative resolution, which the Member proposes after having taken further advice and which she has explained. The remainder of the amendments are minor or technical, and I have nothing further to say other than that I accept the Member's argument that they will simply enhance the coherence of the Bill in a drafting context. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I will add that, as Chair of the Committee, I believe that the reform of our licensing laws is well overdue.”
“We all look forward to seeing how that unfolds in the time ahead. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Committee conducted a thorough examination of the Bill and was content with it as amended by the Member during Committee Stage. However, since the Committee concluded its consideration of the Bill, further amendments have been tabled by the Member that have not been formally considered by the Committee. I cannot, therefore, give a formal Committee position on them. However, I note that the majority are technical and do not change the policy intent of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2, although not considered by the Committee, does not change the definition of "outdoor stadium" substantively.”
“The Committee subsequently sought and obtained a commitment from Ulster Rugby that it would set up a similar committee to discuss and address residents' concerns. The Committee very much welcomes that development. In fact, the Committee wrote to the IFA and Ulster GAA with a similar request, and I am delighted, on behalf of the Committee, to report that, in the last number of days, the GAA has said that it is its intention to establish an event management committee that will have community representation. The IFA will continue with its community forum, which includes community groups and addresses issues relating to the development of the site and will also deal with event management in the stadium. I hope that those committees and fora provide residents with a platform to establish good working relationships with the stadia.”
“Some members, as well as the sporting organisations, noted that that was common practice for modern-day sporting stadia and, indeed, was an essential part of stadia business models. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also acknowledged that the issues faced by residents on the day of a game, when thousands of fans may be present, are likely to be significantly different to those resulting from a function held in a stadium. However, the Committee also recognised and shared the concerns of residents on that and, importantly, on antisocial behaviour. The Ravenhill residents' group favoured the establishment of a stadium community committee along the lines of that convened by the management of the Aviva Stadium in Dublin.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard evidence that the business cases of each of the governing bodies include provision for ancillary use of the stadia — that is, functions. The extent of that was not defined for each of the stadia, although it was suggested that, for Windsor stadium, it could be between 20 and 30 functions a year. The Committee also recognised that it was difficult to estimate the number or type of function that each of the stadia would hold. For example, functions could be held during the day, and organisers may wish to avail themselves of the licensed facilities while others may not. The number of people attending a function could range from tens of people attending a seminar to hundreds attending charity fundraising events.”
“Taking the example of Ulster Rugby, the Committee heard that 40% to 50% of the crowd attend as families. Should a match extend beyond 9.00 pm, that creates a significant difficulty as it still means that families in the licensed areas with children under-18 must either separate or leave the stadium. <BR /> <BR />However, clause 4 amends the 1996 Order to include outdoor stadia in the provision that allows a court to attach conditions to the licence at the time that it is granted or renewed. The clause also provides for a district PSNI commander of the district in which the stadium is situated to apply to the court to attach conditions to the licence at any time during the life of the licence. Therefore, the Committee felt that there were sufficient protections provided by the clause in respect of child protection.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also noted in correspondence from the Kingspan Stadium that there are 14 food concessions that are not mixed retail. Those serve food and non-alcoholic beverage only and are the main conduit for all food and non-alcoholic beverage in the stadium. That, to the Committee, appeared to be a balanced approach to child protection in respect of mixed retailing and one that the other two stadia under development may wish to consider. <BR /> <BR />There was some wide discussion about under-18s being on licensed parts of the stadia after 9.00 pm and at sporting events that are primarily focussed on under-18s. However, one of the key aspects of the Bill is to exempt under-18s from that provision of the principal order. Why is that? The Committee heard evidence that the sports in question are increasingly family focused.”
“All stakeholders who gave evidence supported the key provision of the Bill — that is, that there should be a new type of Bill applicable to outdoor stadia — but it is fair to say that there were some differences of opinion on the checks and balances that should be applied to the operation of the licence. For example, in relation to child protection, the PSNI raised concerns about mixed retailing; that is, the selling of alcohol and non-alcoholic products from the same sales point. The Committee noted that mixed retailing takes place in the SSE Arena and queried with the PSNI if there had been an issue with it at that venue. However, they were not aware of any such problems. The Committee also noted that Mrs Cochrane stated in a paper to the Committee there had been no conditions placed on the licence in relation to the matter.”
“Those generally related to child protection issues, the operation of the licence in respect of functions and, though not directly related to the Bill, antisocial behaviour in residential areas linked to alcohol consumption in stadia during and after games. In my doing so, Members may note specific reference to the Kingspan Stadium. I should explain that there was a greater focus on the Kingspan Stadium in the Committee’s report than the other two stadia currently under development — that is, Casement Park and Windsor Park — simply because it is already in operation and, therefore, provides an insight into how an outdoor stadia licence could be applied in practice. <BR /> <BR />The Committee took evidence from Mrs Cochrane and a number of other key stakeholders.”
“<BR /> <BR />The development of the SSE Arena in Belfast, formerly the Odyssey Arena, led to consideration of the need to amend the principal order, as that type of facility was not envisaged when the order was formulated. Subsequently, the issue was addressed by the Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. <BR /> <BR />The Bill aims to apply the licensing provisions that apply to the SSE Arena to outdoor stadia. The Committee supports the Bill’s aim to introduce a new type of licence applicable to outdoor stadia. <BR /> <BR />A Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, before I make comments about the amendments before us, I will, with your indulgence, speak briefly about some of the key issues identified in the Committee’s report that are pertinent to today’s discussions.”
“Go raibh maith agat, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Member for bringing the Bill to Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />As has been outlined, the Licensing Order 1996 requires a person wishing to sell alcohol in the course of business to hold a licence. That is of relevance, as plans were announced in September 2010 for state-of-the-art, outdoor sports stadia to be developed at the GAA’s Casement Park, Ulster Rugby’s Ravenhill Park and the IFA’s Windsor Park. Such outdoor stadia are not covered by the principal order, and parallels in respect of licensing arrangements have been drawn between the situation faced by the then Odyssey Arena and the planned outdoor stadia.”
“So, although you talk about there being a democratic deficit, you see that there is an awful lot more of a democratic deficit out in quangoland than there is in the Chamber or even in local government. That being said, I think that it is an important part of a process in which we are prepared and quite willing to make changes. I think that the public will support the change. As I have said, Sinn Féin is happy to support this agreement that we reached a few months ago.”
“Perhaps the deliberations over the last several years have been a bit of a long slog; I would agree with that. Obviously, from Sinn Féin's point of view, we made the agreement, and we are happy to stick with and support that agreement to reduce the number of MLAs to be returned to the Assembly following the election after the next one in May. We think that, in the round, it is a balanced and reasonable decision to take. <BR /> <BR />A lot of people out there have come round to the view that there may well be too many MLAs. I have certainly been on the record in the Chamber as saying that I do not necessarily agree with that. Look at the number of MLAs and even local councillors that we have, and then look at the fact that we have 150-plus quangos out there, which host more than 2,000 people as public appointees.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I think that a good friend of mine once said that wish lists are for Christmas, but, anyway, we will deal with something else. <BR /> <BR />I was not quite sure what the previous Member who spoke meant when he said that the legislation has been a bit of a "long slog". I was beginning to wonder whether he meant a different discussion or whether I had come to the Chamber at the wrong time. Obviously, the Bill has been dealt with by way of accelerated passage.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the end, the Committee considered that there are sufficient checks and balances in place to allow the disapplication of section 86 of the Charities Act 2008 to designated religious charities here. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly.”
“However, in short, there was a principle under discussion regarding the delineation of responsibilities between Church and state, which the Minister has addressed, and the maintenance of transparency in the operation of a charity in order to give confidence to the public. The question raised was this: are we simply giving preferential treatment to Church organisations, or do we have an appropriate level of accountability within the proposed new arrangements? Members should note, however, that the Charity Commission still has the power to de-designate a religious charity and that all the requisite accounts have, of course, to be filed. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also considered that there was an equivalent exemption in place in Scotland, and the Department has advised that there have been no issues relating to the exemption there.”
“However, as was pointed out to the Churches, they are already exempt from the provisions in sections 33 to 36 of the Act, and therefore they, not the Charity Commission, already have that power. <BR /> <BR />The discussion moved on to the internal governance of Churches and the wider range of responsibilities that may be held by ministers, priests, laypeople and so on and the impact that being removed as a trustee would have on them in their wider role in the Church. The governance arrangements would mean that they would likely have to be removed from those responsibilities as well. <BR /> <BR />Many would accept that Churches are highly unlikely to knowingly appoint a person to a board of trustees of a charity who has been convicted of a crime that would ordinarily render them unsuitable for such a position.”
“I thank the Minister for bringing forward the statutory rule. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to day that the Committee has given the matter extensive consideration, holding two evidence sessions with the Department for Social Development and one with representatives of Church organisations. As the Minister has indicated, this is about the fact that the Act makes general provision to disqualify a person from being a trustee of a charity, whereas the statutory rule is meant to disapply that, if you like, and exempt Church organisations from that requirement. <BR /> <BR />The Committee had a prolonged discussion with Church organisations on the matter. The original issue for the Churches appeared to be who should have the power to remove a trustee from a designated religious charity.”
“<BR /> <BR />We hope that the review sets the stage for the incoming Department for Communities to take this important issue forward in the new mandate so that appropriate regulation can be established for a sector that, as we all know and appreciate, is expanding here, if nothing else. <BR /> <BR />With that, let me say that the Committee for Social Development supports the Bill at Final Stage.”
“However, the Bill, as already outlined, was not the vehicle to deal with those. Similarly, Members will note that the House considered the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill earlier today, and issues relating to the regulation of the private rented sector also arose during the Committee’s consideration of that Bill. The Committee, therefore, welcomes the Department’s current review of the role and regulation of the private rented sector and, indeed, will be briefed on that at its meeting on 3 March. I think it is important to put that on the public record on behalf of the Committee so that people are aware that it has taken very seriously the whole question of antisocial behaviour and the need to regulate fully the private rented sector.”
“I thank the departmental officials for that very diligent work and their support for the Committee in its deliberations. I will put on record, as stated in an earlier debate, the very positive working relationship that we have had with the Department throughout the legislative process and the response of the then Minister and the current Minister to the Committee's concerns, particularly on clause 2, which he amended at the request of the Committee. I also acknowledge the contribution of our stakeholders, particularly Housing Rights, whose expertise proved invaluable in the Committee's deliberations. <BR /> <BR />During our consideration of the Bill, a number of other matters were raised by and at the Committee. In general, those were about the regulation of the private rented sector.”