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 4 of 15.
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Social Development Committee, let me say that the Minister has given a fairly comprehensive report on the content, substance and intent of the Bill. I thank him for bringing the Bill forward, following on from his predecessor, Mervyn Storey. <BR /> <BR />The Committee obviously very much welcomes the fact that we are at the Final Stage of the Bill, and we fully support it. It establishes important provisions, particularly on the sharing of information, which has been outlined, on empty properties and the disclosure of information relating to antisocial behaviour. While it is true that there was some considerable toing and froing on these aspects of the Bill, the Committee was ultimately satisfied with the Department's clarification and rationale for the provisions.”
“I do not expect the Minister to project into the next mandate and to speak for people in that mandate. Does he not agree, however, that it is regrettable that, notwithstanding his Department's previous consultations with wider sectors, we have not had a holistic review of licensing legislation in the current mandate, given its importance to tourism and local job sectors?”
“The Committee is, therefore, content with the amendments. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 33, the Committee welcomes new clause 73A, which provides for the sharing of information between councils in respect of their functions under the Act. Amendment Nos 34 and 35 are consequential to amendment No 33. <BR /> <BR />With that, a Cheann Comhairle, I conclude my comments on behalf of the Committee on the group 3 amendments. We support the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 27 to 31 seek to strike a balance between those two interests. Amendment No 27, for example, will allow access to an entry in the register, rather than to the entire register. The person must also have a genuine interest in the property, as defined in amendment No 29. Importantly for elected representatives who have regularly been involved in these matters and have to deal with complaints from constituents about HMO-related antisocial behaviour, the Department confirmed that it will also be able to access a relevant entry in the register. That, the Committee believes, strikes the appropriate balance between addressing the security concerns of landlords and providing access to a relevant entry in the register to a person who is concerned with the information in that entry.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Amendment Nos 27 to 31 relate to clause 62 on the HMO register. The Chartered Institute of Housing, the Landlords' Association NI and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors all voiced concern about the potential threat to landlords' safety should their names, property addresses and contact details be included in the register and made available for public consultation. That obviously generated considerable debate in Committee. The Committee acknowledged the concerns that were expressed but took the clear view that it was a public interest matter and that sufficient information should be made available to ensure that residents can address their concerns regarding an HMO; for example, where there is antisocial behaviour of tenants to the landlord and/or managing agent.”
“The Committee welcomes that and is also content with the remaining amendments in this group.”
“I will, however, draw attention to clause 83, as did the Minister, and the Minister's opposition to the clause. The Committee had real concerns about clause 83, which would ensure that the tenancy agreement remains in place, and therefore that the tenant continues to pay rent, even in situations where landlords have not fulfilled their obligations under the legislation. The Committee was concerned that that potentially undermined the rights of the tenant in seeking redress for a landlord's failure to address substandard accommodation. As a result of the Committee's reservations and with reference to the view of the Attorney General that the clause was not required as the provisions are covered under common law, the Department fortunately decided to remove clause 83.”
“I do not intend to say very much on the group 2 amendments. We have covered quite a lot of ground, and the Minister has already referred in some detail to aspects that the Committee raised because most of the amendments are technical and drafting amendments.”
“Members of the Committee are satisfied with the good work done by the Committee, its officials, departmental officials and the Minister, who took on board if not all the concerns, certainly the vast majority. <BR /> <BR />We believe that this is a good Bill and, as I said in my opening remarks, a comprehensive one. It is about raising the standards for housing conditions; ensuring maximum accountability for tenants and landlords; and ensuring far greater health and safety for people who live in HMOs. The Bill does not deal with antisocial behaviour per se or the number and density of HMOs permitted in any street, so the Committee has made and will make very strong recommendations that those matters be taken forward with the relevant authorities by the incoming Department.”
“The Committee was content with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 47 to 51 are consequential to amendment No 46, and the Committee is content with those. That is all that I have to say as Chairperson on the amendments in the group. <BR /> <BR />I will now make a couple of brief comments as an MLA. The Committee was very conscious of and alive to the concerns raised by a range of stakeholders, not least the residents whose lives have been very negatively impacted on by the over-provision of HMOs in a number of areas. The Committee listened to all their concerns. As local representatives, many of us have had direct experience of trying to intervene and intercede on people's behalf.”
“The key issue in amendment No 46, however, is that the detail required in the giving of notice for making a HMO application will be included in regulation, and that may incorporate the level of information required to be published, how that is to be publicised, the role of the council in the process and the consequence of failing to comply with the requirements of the regulations. <BR />The changes stem from landlords' concern about the level of detail to be included about them in the HMO register and the potential threat to their security. The Committee noted that the Department will consult councils and other stakeholders when drawing up the regulations, which will, of course, come before the Committee for Social Development, or, more appropriately, the Committee for Communities, for scrutiny in the time ahead.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was content with the amendments and the agreement from the Department to clarify in guidance the requirement to notify tenants who the managing agent is. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 42 removes "cousins" from the definition of "relative", and the Minister has already dealt with that. The Committee was content with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 46 to 51 relate to schedule 2. Amendment No 46 makes a significant change to the schedule regarding the publication of an application for a HMO licence. That relates to the information required to be included in the HMO register under clause 62, the amendments to which will form part of the group 3 debate.”
“That ensures that the licence must have a bona fide representative named as a managing agent, who will act in a legal capacity for a HMO. The agent must also be named on the register, which should bring greater transparency as to who the responsible parties are for each and every HMO. That is to do with accountability about who owns a property. The Committee, therefore, was content with the clause as amended. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 40 to 43 relate to clause 88, "Interpretation". During discussions with the Department, officials noted that the original definition of a managing agent would also inadvertently include a letting agent, as a letting agent often accepts the first month’s rent. Subsequently, a letting agent has nothing further to do with the management of a property. Amendment Nos 40, 41 and 43 clarify that issue.”
“This is all about guaranteeing security. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 22 and 23 relate to clause 29, "Death of sole licence holder: effect on licence". The Committee acknowledged stakeholders' concerns that the three months referred to in the clause may not be sufficient to wind up a licence holder’s estate. The amendment satisfied the Committee that it would afford councils greater flexibility to extend this period if necessary. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 24, 25 and 26 relate to clause 33. The Committee was content with the amendment that clarifies that it is an offence for an owner to appoint someone to act as a managing agent if that person is not named on the licence and that it is an offence for a person to act as a managing agent if they are not named on the licence.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 20 and 21 relate to clause 28, "Change of ownership: effect on licence". The Bill as introduced did not allow for licences to be transferred when there is a change of ownership. The Committee recognised that that would cause uncertainty for tenants of such a HMO and the proposed new owner. Clause 28, as amended, allows for the transfer of a licence as long as the proposed new owner applies for a licence before the transfer takes effect. A council, of course, still has to consider an application in the normal way, and a transferred licence will cease to have effect at a particular date if a new licence is granted or if the application is refused. That approach, however, at least builds in more time for tenants and a proposed new landlord when there is a question over the licensing of a HMO.”
“The Committee was, therefore, content with this and other aspects of amendment No 8. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 16, 17, 18 and 19 are substantive amendments to clause 26 to ensure that the changes brought about by amendments to clause 28 — "Change of ownership: effect on licence" — take into account all joint ownership cases. New subsection (5) reflects a situation in joint ownership in which a licence transfer occurs as a result of new ownership, and one person who was a licensee before the transfer continues to be an owner after the transfer has taken place. That gives councils the powers to vary a licence in such circumstances following an application to renew the licence by the existing licensee and the new owner. The Committee was content with the proposed amendments to clause 26.”
“Amendment No 8 relates to clause 20, "Renewal of licence", and it is important. The renewal of licences in areas where there is already over-provision was raised in Committee. In other words, some residents wanted to try retrospectively to reduce the number of HMOs in any given area, and I can understand why. The Bill will allow councils to prevent new HMO licences being issued where there is already over-provision in an area. The argument was made, however, that the renewal of a licence in an area of existing over-provision should not be denied because of that. The Bill does not seek retrospectively to address over-provision of HMOs in areas by denying owners a licence purely because it is up for renewal. That appeared to the Committee to be simply unfair.”
“The Committee, however, was content that the word locality applies only to a definition of living accommodation as detailed in clauses 2(5)(a) and 2(5)(b). The amendment to clause 10 is a slight reworking of the original clause to refer to "relevant living accommodation". The Committee was content with those amendments, but it had quite a number of reservations. As I said, the incoming Minister will be asked to liaise directly with the Department of Justice and the PSNI to try to resolve these matters on a more satisfactory basis for local residents in particular.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 and 6 relate to clause 10, the "Fit and proper persons" test. The Committee welcomed the introduction of a fit and proper person test to an owner or managing agent of a HMO under clause 10. There were originally some concerns regarding the inclusion of the word "locality" in the clause, which the Minister referred to earlier, and which suggested to the Landlords’ Association that landlords would be responsible for the antisocial behaviour of their tenants, even if that took place outside the curtilage of the property.”
“The Committee listened to concerns about the absence of seasonal and migrant workers from the clause, and raised that with the Department. The Department indicated that it was always its intent to capture these groups in the clause, based on an assumption that, due to their transient nature, any accommodation could be taken as being their main residence and, therefore, the groups did not need to be specified. However, because seasonal workers may have an address other than their main address — they may stay elsewhere while they are working away from home — the Department decided to amend clause 3 to specify seasonal workers. The Department did not include migrants, as it is assumed that they will have only one main residence. The Committee is content with that explanation and the amendments.”
“As I said in my opening remarks, I intend to focus on the key amendments under our consideration. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 2 relate to clause 3, which relates to:”
“<BR /> <BR />I am sure that the vast majority of HMO landlords aim to provide a high-quality, safe environment, with the number of tenants being appropriate to the size of the property, and with the appropriate quality and number of facilities. However, there is sufficient concern about the sector that suggests that a voluntary approach to regulation is far too light a touch and is not acceptable. There has been evidence of poor quality standards in some HMOs which present health and safety risks to the tenants, and legislation is required to address those issues. I, and the Committee, believe that the Bill will help to address those issues. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments in group 1, which relate mainly to licensing. There are 34 amendments in the group and the Committee is supportive of them all.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before moving on to the amendments, I point out that the Committee supported a system that was cost-neutral to councils. It would be helpful to get the Minister’s up-to-date position on that matter. <BR /> <BR />We need to recognise that HMOs are an essential part of the housing sector. They provide comparatively cheap accommodation for people who cannot afford to rent their own place. However, a property that is rented to several unrelated individuals, perhaps for only part of the year, presents health and safety issues, as well those relating to standards. These are the issues that the Bill aims to address. They include, for example, the number of people that the property is suitable for, the facilities in the property, the size of room etc.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee believes that the inclusion of behavioural standards in tenancy agreements must be mandatory to ensure consistency, and that breaching them would be, ultimately, grounds for eviction if the rules continued to be blatantly ignored. The Committee recommends that this proposal should be considered in a wider review of the private rented sector. <BR /> <BR />Landlords and managing agents should also be required to attend training on any code of practice developed, in order to raise professional standards in the sector. Indeed, the Committee recommends that an accreditation scheme should be developed for landlords and managing agents and that, once such a scheme is established, they must be accredited under it before they can apply for, or be named as, the managing agent on a licence.”
“Where these should be situated is, of course, a planning matter, although Belfast, for example, has a HMO subject plan which, at least, underpins such planning applications. The Committee believes that this approach should continue, even though such buildings will not be technically designated as HMOs when the Bill is in force. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also recommends that there should be robust arrangements in all HMO tenancy agreements to help address antisocial behaviour by tenants and seeks the Department’s agreement that this should be included in the guidance to accompany the Bill. Indeed, we have also suggested that the Department should liaise directly with the PSNI and the Department of Justice to address this matter in the time ahead.”
“Of course, having been a representative of that area for a number of years, I am very mindful of it. I am also equally struck by the fact that the vast majority of students in those houses are very well behaved and, not only that, are exemplars of good citizenship. Nevertheless, there has been an issue associated with HMOs, and residents have been very negatively impacted by it. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, to the Committee's mind, the development of purpose-built managed student accommodation has the potential to help address that problem. Well-managed properties, such as those with tenancy agreements that include behavioural standards for tenants, could alleviate the pressure on residential areas where there is currently over-provision of HMOs.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would like to highlight a number of points that are of relevance to the Bill and to stakeholders by referring to some recommendations the Committee made in its report. I will then specifically address the amendments in group 1. <BR /> <BR />In addition to agreeing the amendments brought by the Department, the Committee made a number of recommendations in its report. A number of them relate directly or indirectly to addressing the antisocial behaviour of tenants and the responsibility of landlords to assist with that. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, we all know of, and have heard about, the antisocial behaviour perpetrated, often in the name of students, in houses of multiple occupation. Certainly, there is a strong public perception of it. Everyone has heard about the whole issue in the Holylands in the last number of years.”
“I would like to thank the Department officials for their proactivity in that regard. Explanation and clarification often sufficed in respect of concerns raised by the Committee, and where this did not, the Committee was content with amendments proposed by the then Minister to address those concerns. These engagements were very positive and, in relation to the Department, reflect a mature, collaborative approach between the Committee and the Department to address a complex Bill in a relatively short time. Suffice it to say that the Committee was, therefore, content with the amendments presented by the Department during Committee Stage, and we support the amendments today in the House.”
“That is a fundamental change to the existing system of voluntary registration and one that, I think, we can and all do very much welcome. <BR /> <BR />Members will note the high number of amendments to the Bill: there are 54 in total. The Committee had been told that a significant number of the amendments would be consequential, but, at least technically speaking, that is not the case. However, a large majority of the amendments are not substantive, as the Minister said. I will, therefore, be directing my comments on behalf of the Committee to those amendments that are substantive issues. <BR /> <BR />I am glad to say that many of these amendments were proposed a result of the discussions the Committee had with officials and stakeholders during the Committee Stage.”
“In other words, it does not relate to the number of HMOs or any question of over-provision of HMOs in areas. Neither does the Bill seek to deal with antisocial behaviour of tenants in HMOs, although the Committee has made some recommendations relating to that issue in its report, and I will come to those in due course. <BR /> <BR />The Bill’s purpose is to enable better regulation of houses in multiple occupation. It introduces a system of licensing and new provisions about standards in housing. It also streamlines the definition of a house in multiple occupation and clarifies existing law. The proposed licensing system will mean that a person is acting illegally if they are not licensed to operate a property as a house in multiple occupation.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First of all, I thank the Minister for bringing the Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill to Consideration Stage. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee for Social Development. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister alluded to, the Bill was a long and complex one for consideration, with 91 clauses and eight schedules. It raised a wide range of issues, some of which were not directly related to the Bill. So, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, it might be worth saying a few things up front on what the Bill is not about, because of the strength of feeling of a number of residents who have been impacted very negatively by their experiences, but it is not only residents. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not about planning matters.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. Will she join me in reminding people that the Department provides essential services to asylum seekers and refugees, as well as to people who are reliant on the Department's very important services, for example the Victims and Survivors Service?”
“I want to put on the record that we still see no role for a Secretary of State and, as I have said, any provisions relating to national security, but, notwithstanding the fact that we have taken a principled stand on that, made objections about that matter and voted against it consistently, we support the Bill overall.”
“Quite clearly, it extends the range of access that people will have if they have a justifiable complaint. So, we believe that there are sufficient mechanisms built in to make sure that there is no abuse of the system, but it was fundamental to all of us on the Committee to make sure that the citizens out there have the maximum protection that they require as citizens availing themselves of public services. Go raibh maith agat. <BR /> <BR />Sorry, I want to place on record — and the Chairperson, thankfully, has done it — that our party has consistently taken the view, in Committee and in the Chamber, during the passage of the legislation, that we saw no necessary or justifiable role whatsoever for the Secretary of State or to introduce provisions around what was termed national security or public interest.”
“The work that has been put in so far has been very important and, ultimately, will be beneficial for the citizens whom we represent. Clearly, the Bill provides for the maximisation of protections for citizens. I think that it gives people better access to redress where they have complaints and criticisms. A lot of concerns were raised by members and other contributors in terms of evidence that we might have been opening the floodgates for more complaints and additional litigation. We are satisfied as a Committee that that is not the case.”
“We tried to maximise the benefits from the merger of the two offices. I think that some of us said that, when we merged them, we did not want to dumb anything down. We wanted to maximise the strength of the offices of the commissioner and the ombudsman, and I think that we have managed to do that. Again, as the Chairperson has highlighted, it is important that we have brought the role, which, essentially, is to maximise protection for citizens and consumers — people who are availing themselves of very important services on a day-to-day basis. <BR /> <BR />It is a good Bill and an important piece of legislation — one which I think will add comfort and, more importantly, protection to a wider range of citizens.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I rise to support the Final Stage of the Bill, and gladly do so. First, I thank the Chair of the Committee, Mike Nesbitt, for his professional conduct in chairing the very lengthy process of taking the Committee through all of the wheels and turns of the provisions within the Bill. It has been quite a complex Bill. As I said, I want to place on record our thanks, as a party grouping, to the Chair and acknowledge his ability to manage the business to get us to this point. I also thank all the Committee officials who, again, worked very, very hard, tirelessly and professionally to help us all through our deliberations on what were a lot of complex issues. <BR /> <BR />In his presentation, the Chairperson highlighted the complexity of the Bill.”
“The Bill before us for Final Stage is, therefore, simply about dissolving three existing Departments and renaming some others. Whilst some Members expressed concern at the lack of time to scrutinise the Bill, it is fair to say that there was general support for its principles. On behalf of the Committee, I support the Bill.”
“The dissolution of three Departments will involve the reallocation of their existing functions, and there is to be some additional rearrangement of the functions of others. Members will be aware that those details are not dealt with by the Departments Bill. Instead, the reallocation of statutory functions will be provided for in a separate transfer of functions order. The Committee received a briefing on that draft order from departmental officials at its meeting on 27 January. As a Committee, we will give the matter further consideration at our meeting, along with comments from other Statutory Committees. The Committee aims to convey its views on the proposed order and, indeed, the views expressed by other Committees, to OFMDFM by 12 February, as requested.”
“For example, there will be fewer Ministers, departmental hierarchies, as they have been described — those are not my words — permanent secretaries, central management units and press offices.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I apologise on behalf of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. They are unable to attend this morning, and I have been asked to speak on behalf of the Committee on the Final Stage of the Departments Bill. I thank the junior Minister for her opening remarks and welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on the 30 November last, junior ministers McCann and Pengelly briefed the Committee on the Departments Bill and the rationale for seeking to progress it through the accelerated passage procedure. As has been said, during that meeting we heard that the reduction in the number of Departments from 12 to nine will provide for a leaner, more streamlined and efficient Administration.”
“They are not elected and they are less accountable. On that basis, Sinn Féin supports the Bill and opposes the amendment.”
“They were only ever really there when we had direct rule, when we had a very clear democratic deficit. There is no justification, in our view, for retaining quite a number of those bodies. That is where we need to start making a real difference in reducing the democratic deficit, because, let us remind ourselves, a lot of those bodies discharge a significant amount of public money. They also discharge quite a number of public services, and, as far as Sinn Féin is concerned, we need to look at the existence of a number of those bodies and remind ourselves that we have over 2,000 persons appointed to those bodies. We talk about the number of elected representatives, but there are a lot more non-elected people involved in discharging public services here and discharging a lot of public largesse, if you like.”
“Neither I, nor Sinn Féin — or anyone else — knows whether the political process will be more inclusive in 2021 than it is now. I hope it might be, but I do not know. We are certainly prepared to begin the process of reducing the number of MLAs from six to five per constituency, and we do that heartily and gladly. <BR /> <BR />As I said, we oppose the amendment for that reason, and I would remind people that, when we talk about over-governance, we still have fewer than 200, and more than 150, quangos. Some of those, such as tribunals and other bodies, are very important and need to be in existence, given the nature of them. There are some very professional people providing public service on many of those bodies, but there are also a lot of quangos that should no longer be in existence.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think that the events of the last number of months very much underline the need for such prudence, given the fact that we have been, to some extent, alienated from the general public. Perhaps a lot of people feel disaffected towards the Assembly, and that indicates that vehicles are still needed that bring people closer to the political process, so we support the Bill as tabled. <BR /> <BR />We remind people, as we did in the last debate, that, when we talk about over-governance and we compare here with Scotland or somewhere else, this is not Scotland. Thankfully, Scotland did not experience some of the situations that we have had to deal with here. It is not comparing like for like, so there is a need for continuing, greater inclusivity.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will not detain the House any longer than necessary, so I will not be taking any interventions, thank you. <BR /> <BR />As the Member who proposed the amendment made very clear in his earlier submission, this matter has been well rehearsed. I reiterate, on behalf of Sinn Féin, that we support the Bill as tabled. That is, to reduce the number of MLAs from six to five per constituency before the elections in 2021. We entirely acknowledge that there is a significant public perception that there are too many MLAs, but that is not a position that we accept at all. We remind people of the original discussions that brought us to the Good Friday Agreement, which wanted to enshrine inclusivity and to maximise participation in a fledgling democratic process.”
“However, I put on the record on behalf of Sinn Féin that we still see no need whatsoever for any provision relating to what is called "national security" in the NIPSO Bill. We will vote against the amendment, but we will not push the Assembly to a Division.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee Chairperson alluded to the fact that a number of members on the Committee, as a matter of principle, consistently voted against the provisions in the Bill that would provide for non-disclosure, as was described by, I think, the term "national security". <BR /> <BR />Obviously, our party has been consistent in this matter. We see absolutely no need whatsoever for such a provision in the Bill and in the role of the ombudsman, presently to be the NIPSO. We have made that very clear on the record since the Bill was tabled. <BR /> <BR />We were content to support the suspension of Standing Orders to have an Exceptional Further Consideration Stage.”
“The Committee, therefore, decided against amending the legislation to include an enabling clause for information sharing with private landlords. Crucially, the Committee welcomed the fact that the issue had been well discussed with the Department and had been included in the recently launched discussion paper 'Review of the Role and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector'. In other words, members and others had concerns about this being a missed opportunity and a gap being left in the regulations process, but, given that it will be dealt with in the 'Review of the Role and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector', the Committee was content to leave the situation for now. The Committee, therefore, is supportive of the Bill and the amendments tabled by the Minister.”
“At its meeting on 10 December, the Committee agreed that references to grounds 1 and 3 in clause 2 should be removed by way of an amendment provided by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />The second key issue that I will deal with today is the fact that private landlords will not be included under the information-sharing provisions of clause 2. The Committee was concerned that that created an imbalance and that tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour could be pushed into the private sector. While the Committee believed that there was a legitimate argument to include private landlords, it recognised the serious concerns about individual landlords being equipped or not equipped to handle personal data in accordance with data protection legislation.”