Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the amazing Suzie Cave from Research and Information Service (RaISe) to the meeting and invite her to brief the Committee.

Ms Suzie Cave (Research and Information Service): Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that it is a hefty paper, so I will do my best to keep it concise. The purpose of the session is to give you a briefing on the Dilapidation Bill, its context, key provisions and areas for potential scrutiny.

The Bill aims to modernise and consolidate powers for Northern Ireland councils to address dilapidated, dangerous or neglected buildings and sites, replacing fragmented and outdated laws. I will provide a bit of background and rationale to it. Section 2 of the paper looks at the current situation, given the fact that town centres and some rural areas suffer as a result of having derelict or vacant buildings, undermining regeneration and local amenity. Existing legislation is outdated: some of it dates back to the 19th century. It is limited in scope and is inconsistently applied. Section 2.2 provides examples of that existing legislation and outlines some of its main limitations. As confirmed by the Minister during the Second Stage debate, there is also no clear inventory of affected properties and the scale of the problem is not fully quantified. That, again, is picked up throughout the later stages of the paper.

Section 3 of the paper relates to the Bill's development, particularly the consultation and associated assessments. The consultation was conducted in 2016, and it presented four options. Option 1 was to do nothing; option 2 was the production of non-statutory guidance; option 3 was a Bill to amend and consolidate existing legislation, which would not involve the introduction of new regimes from other jurisdictions or the extension of existing local Acts; and option 4 was a new Bill to introduce a new, broader regime. That would include elements of the existing legislation and legislation from other jurisdictions. That was the Department's preferred option. There was strong support in the consultation from councils for option 4. Stakeholders were clear that they wanted robust cost recovery, clear guidance and protection for heritage sites. Concerns were raised about the consistency of the use of provisions across councils, funding and cost recovery, if owners are unknown.

The associated regulatory impact assessment (RIA) explored four options, and of note were options 3 and 4, which were to provide a new regime with or without financial support from the Northern Ireland Executive. Option 3, which was to provide a regime without financial support, was the Department's preferred option. The explanatory memorandum considered other aspects, such as the financial effects on the Department, human rights, equality and rural needs, about which the Department highlighted no concerns or significant impacts.

I will move on to some of the observations and considerations that were highlighted. One is the date of the consultation, which was done back in 2016, and whether the Department feels that the number of responses to the consultation and the draft RIA, which received one response, is representative of the range of industries that could be impacted by the provisions. Option 4 of the RIA asked whether government funding is still up for consideration and whether the Bill provides for phased commencement of provisions, as suggested in the consultation.

I will move on to the bulk of the paper, which looks at the key provisions of the Bill. It takes a thematic approach to the types of notices, cost recovery aspects, guidance, heritage and regulations. Each section provides an overview of the provisions and specific considerations. It also provides examples of similar provisions from elsewhere, some of which the Bill's provisions have been based on.

We will briefly look at the different types of notices. There is a hierarchy: for low-level neglect, there is a maintenance notice; for serious disrepair, there is a dilapidation notice; for dangerous buildings, there is a dangerous structure notice; for immediate risks, there are emergency action powers; and for health or nuisance issues, there is a defective premises notice. For all those notices, a council can, at its discretion, require remedial action or demolition and carry out those works itself, if the owner fails to act. Cost recovery is done through direct charges, land charges or the sale of materials. There is no guaranteed central government funding. Powers are discretionary, not mandatory. Councils can choose whether to act, depending on resources and the cost recovery risk, or whether to enforce a charge through an offence. The provisions on the different types of notice are similar to those in England and Wales, as detailed in the table in section 4.1.2.

Considerations include how the provisions will operate and how they compare with those in other jurisdictions. I will not go through all the questions, because quite a number are listed. An "interested person" on whom a notice may be served is defined in clause 24 as the owner and/or the occupier, but what constitutes "an occupier"? The Bill does not appear to provide further detail on that. What criteria will councils use to prioritise sites? For example, what constitutes low-level neglect and serious disrepair etc? Will that be left to a council's discretion or set in the statutory guidance? If practical operations are not clear in the Bill, will they be provided in detail in the guidance? For example, how will councils determine what constitutes "detrimental to the amenity" and "seriously detrimental to the amenity"? If that is to be determined by councils in serving a maintenance notice or a defective premises notice, will it be provided in guidance?

Some of the time frames may be of interest for further consideration. For example, a council may carry out works nine days after a defective premises notice takes effect. Does that give an owner time to respond? What is the time frame for completion of a notice? Will that be set out in the guidance? What flexibility will be offered? Will there be exemptions? Will that be left to the discretion of the council, and could that create inconsistencies?

Members may wish to explore the fines available under the provisions and whether they are enough of a deterrent, particularly for repeat offences. Some of the other jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, and Ireland, provide for repeat offences; in fact, the Isle of Man has daily penalties that are determined by the court. Has the Department considered that?

How do the powers and actions under a defective premises notice, as set out in clause 11, work alongside the Department for Communities' Defective Premises Act (Northern Ireland) 2024? Is there potential for overlap or confusion? What about having a register that is similar to the derelict sites register in Ireland that local authorities keep? Would that help with continued monitoring of the operation, effectiveness and costs of the legislation?

The next section of the paper, in particular section 4.2, looks at cost recovery. A council can recover costs directly from an owner, but challenges may exist if the owner is unknown or untraceable. A charge or notice can be registered on land, allowing costs to be recovered through sale, including forced sale, or binding the new owner to the conditions of a notice. Materials from demolition can also be sold to offset costs.

Considerations on the proposals and examples from other jurisdictions include the following: whether a council's charge on land will have priority over any other charges, such as a mortgage; whether there will be legal issues and delays; whether there will be any form of assistance, should cost recovery provisions not be sufficient for some councils; in that scenario, whether local authority vesting powers similar to those in Ireland's Derelict Sites Act 1990 were ever discussed or considered; and the level of debt on which can enforced sale be used. For example, draft guidance by Hart District Council suggests that the debt must exceed £1,000 and the property must be empty for more than six months. Ireland's Derelict Sites Act also has a derelict sites levy whereby, when urban land is entered on the derelict sites register, the owner must pay an annual levy of 7% of its market value to the local authority.

Has the Department explored that?

Under clause 17, councils must consult planning and heritage bodies before issuing notices for heritage sites. Members may wish to seek clarification on whether the definition of a "heritage site" focuses mainly on land and listed buildings or whether it includes non-listed historic buildings, such as vernacular buildings and those in conservation areas.

A large part of the Bill covers guidance, which section 4.4 considers. Clause 20 requires councils and their officers to follow official guidance from the Department when using their powers. Any new or revised guidance must be presented to the Assembly before it takes effect. The guidance will be important. For example, if a council were to issue a notice without following the guidance, that could be a valid reason for appeal. The Department will develop the guidance with input from councils, and it aims to have a draft ready for review alongside the Bill. Members may wish to get an update on that.

As for other considerations, members may wish to explore whether the guidance provides clarity on and gives meaning to certain terms that are not defined in the Bill. For example, one of those is "amenity". According to guidance on best practice for local authorities in England, there is difficulty with defining that term. It may mean different things in different areas. Further detail on that is provided in the blue box in section 4.4.

Members may wish to clarify whether the guidance will aim to ensure consistency in approach across councils for procedures and approaches under the Bill, such as a test to quantify a dilapidated building's level of neglect; procedures for enforced sale; the process for making changes to guidance; how often such changes could happen; and whether there will be consultation with councils on every change. Members may also want to consider whether definitions and criteria are best situated in the Bill or in the guidance.

Section 4.6 looks at the regulations that are to be made under the Bill. The Bill provides for the development of regulations by the Department. Some of those will made under the draft affirmative procedure, such as those that relate to fixed penalty amounts, to the definition of a heritage site and to amending a statutory provision. Regulations that deal with fees for exercising powers for dangerous structure notices or emergency action will be made under the negative resolution procedure, however. Members may wish to receive more detail on that and consider whether they are happy with the level of scrutiny afforded to regulations.

Section 5, in summary, looks at some of the key areas that may need further exploration or consideration. Support and cross-departmental coordination may also be required to ensure that the Bill is practical, fair and effective. Areas for further consideration may include the Bill's discretionary nature, its financial model and its scope. Members may wish to explore the discretionary nature of the Bill and whether taking a more mandatory approach will be beneficial to ensuring uniform enforcement across councils, compared with the resource implications of having mandatory powers without funding support. At Second Stage, the Minister stated that that issue could be considered further.

There are questions to be asked on the scope of the Bill, particularly for neglected sites. Although such sites are referenced in the consultation, they appear to be neither mentioned nor defined in the Bill. When it comes to amenity and housing, it has been suggested that the Bill focuses on external appearance rather than on internal use or housing reuse. At Second Stage, however, the Minister suggested that, as part of its scrutiny, the Committee may want to consider how the Bill might interact with provisions for housing. The blue box on page 49 of the research paper provides an example from Hart District Council, which used its powers to bring a derelict bungalow back into use.

Another area for consideration that relates to the Bill's scope is rural aspects. It has been suggested that the Bill is more urban-focused, which raises concerns about rural properties being overlooked. There are also questions about the public estate. Members may wish to clarify whether the Bill applies to publicly owned buildings and whether councils can recover costs from Departments.

The paper also mentions the use of community asset transfer (CAT) and asks whether it could be explored for publicly and privately owned land and properties. Another aspect is fake shopfronts. Does the Bill provide opportunities to address fake shopfronts where they are not seen as a remedy for dilapidation?

At Second Stage, many concerns were raised about the Bill's financial implications. Those were mostly to do with the cost to councils, businesses and owners and the lack of grants or financial assistance offered, which has the potential to result in disparity across Northern Ireland council areas. The financial model is based on 2018 data that estimates remediation costs at £4 million annually, which averages out at £7,300 a property. That figure is, however, outdated. There is no clear picture of how many properties will be affected and whether the Department has plans to update the data.

During the Second Stage debate, it was stated:

How robust is that claim, particularly in rural or struggling areas, and what work has been done to explore and support it? Questions are asked in the paper about whether there will be any flexibility or support for small or struggling businesses and individuals who have not got the means to undertake remedial action.

Other areas for consideration mentioned in the paper include the cross-cutting nature of the Bill and whether the AERA Minister has corresponded with other Ministers on issues such as rate relief and housing.

Section 6 of the paper looks at how similar legislative powers have been used in other jurisdictions, primarily England. Section 6.1.1 looks at the section 215 powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allow local authorities to serve notices similar to the maintenance notice in the Dilapidation Bill. Research from 1999 shows that 80% of notices resulted in compliance, with only 6% to 8% of notices requiring council intervention.

Section 6.1.2 looks at emergency action and compensation. A 2006 case study from Hastings Borough Council illustrates some of the risks of using emergency powers similar to those in the Bill that allow a council to act immediately. In the example, the council closed Hastings pier owing to safety concerns. Businesses that were affected sought compensation as a result of the use of the emergency powers. The council lost its appeal owing to not following due process. In that case, it was because the claimants were not considered to be the cause of the problem. That case study highlights the legal and financial risks that a council may face when using emergency powers. Emergency powers in the Dilapidation Bill may be used in a similar way. The Committee may wish to seek clarity on safeguards, such as what constitutes "reasonably practicable" in relation to notifying owners; on how compensation claims will be assessed and managed; and on whether councils may be reluctant to use the powers, owing to the potential legal risks.

I will leave it there. I am aware that draft guidance is in development. It may be useful to cross-reference that against some of the issues raised in the paper, once the finalised version of the guidance comes to the fore. As I said, it is a hefty paper, and I sped through it there. If there are other areas that the Committee wishes to discuss, I am happy to do so. Similarly, if members have questions, I am happy to answer them.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is not a bother. Thank you very much. The paper was well set out. It is a comprehensive piece of work. As you pointed out, the guidance is still under development.

I have a couple of areas of concern. One is that the Bill clearly sets out from the start that it is a case of, "The council may". Whether any council administers the powers will be totally discretionary. The "must" only kicks in as and when the councils make a decision. My concern is around the appetite that any council may have for undertaking that work.

You rightly picked out the rural disparity that potentially exists. The Committee will be focused on that, but each of us represents a different constituency and all include urban areas. Each council will have a different attitude to risk and to fighting. I hope that we will be able to assist by adding some more powers to the Bill. Having participated in a few debates on legislation, when I see the word "may", I need real confidence to say that something is worth doing at all, when it essentially says, "if you like". That is what "may" means in most instances, although that is only my perspective.

I have one question, and I know that we will return to the issue anyway. It is on listed buildings. Do you envisage there being any complexity in dealing with heritage sites and listed buildings, given that there is a likely crossover with other Departments' remits, or is that reasonably well covered in the legislation?

Ms Cave: The Bill is light on that. The Department has to consult DFC, which has responsibilities for listed buildings. Does the scope apply just to listed buildings, however, or does it go wider to apply to historic buildings that are not necessarily listed as such? That is one of the concerns that were raised in the consultation. That may be something for the Department to tease out with DFC. DFC already has responsibility for registered listed buildings, so it is easier to follow up with it about those. Trying to get an idea of all historic buildings that there are could be more complicated, and more detail may therefore be warranted in the guidance.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We are trying to be helpful to councils, because our high streets are devoid of customers these days. The Bill is part of the drive, I suppose, to work with councils to get people back on to our high streets.

Mr McAleer: Suzie, thank you for your detailed paper, as always. When you were researching for your paper, did you come across any consultation done with or views expressed by NILGA or the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), particularly on the resource implications for councils?

Ms Cave: Looking back at the overview of the consultation responses that were provided, I can see that the detail came from councils. The overview does not clarify whether the responses came from SOLACE or the Northern Ireland Local Government Association, but that tends to be case when a summary of responses is provided. The overview refers to local government in general. That may be something for the Committee to clarify with departmental officials.

Mr McAleer: This is an issue that, in my mind, sits more neatly in the Department for Communities. The Bill is about regeneration, mostly urban regeneration. How has the Bill ended up with DAERA?

Ms Cave: That is a good question and probably not one that I can answer. I refer to the Department of the Environment days, when a lot of these things got confused. The Defective Premises Act is a DFC Act, and there is a defective premises notice mentioned in the Dilapidation Bill. Even if there is merit in the Bill sitting with DAERA, there are aspects that could cause confusion and overlap with DFC on some of its responsibilities in legislation.

Mr Irwin: Does "dilapidated buildings" include rural buildings? There is a danger that old, disused farmhouses that will never be lived in again and are only still there as a replacement site or something will come into play. No one will repair them, because they are beyond repair. If they are included, that would be wrong.

Ms Cave: There are a lot of areas in the Bill that need a bit more detail on what they apply to. That detail may be provided in the draft guidance, but, until we see the final version of that, I do not want to comment.

Mr Irwin: We will need to keep a close eye on that, because some old farmhouses in the middle of a farmyard in which nobody had lived for years were included in the rating of empty homes scheme.

That was not the idea behind the scheme, but still they fell into the trap, and it proved difficult for some farmers. They had to pay large rates bills on properties that were never going to be lived in again. It is important that people in the countryside who own dilapidated buildings that are never going to be lived in again are not included.

Ms Cave: There are examples in other jurisdictions of where rate relief is removed as a deterrent to dilapidation, so it is about striking that balance.

Mr McCrossan: I agree with Declan and others that the Bill is a bit confusing. The lines are blurred as to why this issue has ended up being legislated for by DAERA rather than by the Department for Communities. Does enforcement for listed or historic buildings — not that that is very effective — not come under the Department for Communities' remit? I turn up at meetings only to be told straight away, before I can even get any words out of my mouth, "We have no money, you know", and there is no follow-up done on anything.

Declan and I can speak to that, because we have seen a number of historic buildings in West Tyrone fall into a state of disrepair. Antisocial behaviour then occurs at them, and they end up being burned down or destroyed altogether because there was no proper intervention made at an earlier stage, particularly when there was the means to do so, privately or otherwise. To ensure that the legislation does not fall between the cracks, what resources will councils be given so that they can effectively remedy some of the issues? Otherwise, we will have a Bill that contains good intentions yet nothing to resource councils to deal with the problems effectively.

Ms Cave: The RIA listed the Department's preferred option as being a new Bill without funding support from the Northern Ireland Executive. The Minister stated at Second Stage that that option was open to consideration or further discussion, particularly at Committee Stage.

The powers in the Bill are discretionary. A council can decide whether to take direct action through remediation or through charging offences and penalties, so those options are available as well. It is probably for councils to decide whether carrying out actual activity rather than taking enforcement action is worth the risk.

Mr McCrossan: The problem is that the Bill is without teeth. Councils have no money. Fermanagh and Omagh District Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council are in my constituency area, and we are told continually that resources are tight — there is no money — and that, ultimately, costs will fall to ratepayers, which will increase the burden on them during a cost-of-living crisis. That is why I am concerned about where the Bill sits. It has good enough intentions, but, when it comes down to it, councils may not duly enforce the legislation because there are not the resources in place for them to do so. Why would a council take action?

Ms Cave: There are options for charging fees for some council services, and that has been suggested as a way to recover costs. It is about the initial outlay, however. There is the risk of it not being guaranteed.

Mr McCrossan: In some cases, people are just tight and do not spend money on their premises; in other cases, however, buildings have fallen between the cracks. They have been repossessed by a bank, say, and are in a state of limbo until they are sold on or whatever. It does not seem that the Bill will resolve anything unless there are resources provided for councils.

Herdman's Mill in Sion Mills is in a terrible state. It could have been salvaged, had proper action been taken years ago by the council or by the Department for Communities. Legislation has no teeth for dealing with the problem, so nothing has been done, and the building is falling into a further state of disrepair as a result. It has no owner. The director of the company is deceased, so the mill is in a state of limbo. That is an example of how the Bill will resolve nothing if there are no resources made available.

Ms Cave: Detail will come in the guidance on whether different opportunities will be provided for councils to establish an owner. Again, investigations will require an outlay. An outlay will also be required if an external person has to be brought in to identify the owner.

Mr McCrossan: Town centres have seen more and more dereliction because the significant cost of rates is putting people out of business, and, ultimately, the buildings then lie derelict. As William said, that is happening in rural towns and villages. If Derry City and Strabane District Council or Fermanagh and Omagh District Council were to embark on enforcement for its derelict properties that are in a terrible state, doing so would bankrupt the council. In any case, councils do not have the resources to do it all.

Ms Cave: In response to your question about where the Bill sits, some existing legislation includes the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which comes under DAERA's remit. Quite a few provisions in the Bill extend the existing legislation and allow for a quicker process to be applied than would have been the case under the 2011 Act. The Bill also extends that Act so that buildings are seen not as a statutory nuisance but, rather, as a visual amenity. I asked the question about amending existing legislation instead of having a separate Bill, but that is for the drafters to explain. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act contains those provisions, however, and, although I understand that the Bill expands them, that is potentially why the Bill sits with DAERA.

Mr McCrossan: It is not straightforward, to be honest.

Mr Blair: I will address some of the political realities in the Bill, as well as some of the practical realities. In my time in politics, I have dealt with every example listed in your briefing: minor neglect; serious neglect; dilapidation; dangerous structures; and environmental health risk. I have spent what seems like an adult lifetime calling for action to be taken, listening to others and agreeing with them and waiting for government, central or otherwise, to do something about issues. The Bill needs to put its proverbial money where its proverbial mouth is. If it does not, nothing will be done.

In the Bill, there is scope for councils to recover costs. We have come close to suggesting an alternative, but I urge caution. There are two reasons for my caution. First, I hope that, if the Government are asked to resource the Bill, those suggesting that they do so will give some indication of where they would like the money to come from, if no additional resources are to come from the Treasury. What budget should be sacrificed in order to resource the Bill?

Secondly, is the principle of using public money to look after private buildings right in the first place? I am sure that I am not the only person here who has worked on town centre initiatives and public realm schemes. A great-nephew living in Australia who has inherited a property in a town or village in Northern Ireland may no longer care about or want to be involved with looking after the state of the building. Whatever we think about that person's approach, the principle has to be that the building is the person's asset. Should public money be used to intervene and do the work, if there will be no cost recovery?

Cost recovery is absolutely crucial, and whether it is done by the local council acting on the ground — there is a range of issues for which councils are the best delivery partners, because they know best what is happening in areas — or whether it is left to central government are two separate aspects. I could not support taking a do-nothing approach to dilapidation or giving up at the get-go. This absolutely can be done. Councils find money for new schemes all the time, and so do the Government. That is how it works.

I will throw something out here. MLAs should be aware that, when we pass new legislation as private Members, central government is not given new funding for its implementation or enforcement. That is a fact of life. As a former member of the Policing Board, I know that the Police Service is not given additional funding when politicians, wherever they may be, enact legislation that has an implication for police resources. The police have to pay for it out of their existing budget. Those are the practical realities.

The political realities are that all of us, collectively, in one role or another have been calling for action on dilapidation for some time. We need to do something about it. Without question, I am happy with the Bill's basic principles and its outlined intent. It is OK to have the conversations with local government and other delivery partners, but something needs to be done. Dilapidation is a serious problem. It impacts on people's properties and on the value of those properties. Ultimately, those properties could present a serious health risk. I hope that we can progress the Bill and address the issues with the Department and others.

The causes of dilapidation were probably not within the initial scope of the review, The causes are a separate issue altogether. There may well be that great-nephew living in Australia, or it could be, as is the case in a number of places that I represent, that a building has become vacant, be it at the pre-dilapidation stage or experiencing dilapidation. It cannot be utilised, however, because there are, say, waste water infrastructure problems or planning issues. I can think of a couple of buildings in the town in which my office is that would make superb hospitality venues, but there is no waste water infrastructure in place. They will never be financial institutions again. Planning services cannot or will not consent to new use for them because the infrastructure is not in place to allow that to happen. That can cause dilapidation as well. If they have not been addressed in the Bill — I suspect that they have not been — we need to look at other implications of dilapidation or potential dilapidation and at the reasons that dilapidation happens in the first place. Did anything about that issue arise when you were researching your paper?

Ms Cave: The Bill does not go into that level of detail. Questions were certainly asked about exemptions, such as whether exemptions would be offered in extenuating circumstances and whether such exemptions should apply in certain circumstances. The guidance is to provide a lot more detail on the processes involved and on how officials should approach each case. Until we have had time to explore fully that guidance —.

Mr Blair: The causes are separate: social issues and policy issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will bring in Daniel to ask a final question. I ask that it be a brief one, please.

Mr McCrossan: It always is, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is, aye.

Mr McCrossan: I completely get where John is coming from. I just want the legislation to have teeth so that it is effective. That is the point that I make. I am also conscious that extremely wealthy individuals are landbanking. It is happening with property in Strabane town centre and in Omagh town centre in the hope that some government organisation will come along and offer them a big windfall to resolve the problem.

Where there is the means to do so, issues should be resolved through enforcement, but, unfortunately, there are some buildings that will fall between the cracks. We have enforcement bodies at the minute that are not effective. As I said earlier, when I turn up to a meeting, the first sentence that I hear from people is, "We've no money". I then wonder why they even turned up to the meeting. By the way, that is not a question for you to answer, Suzie. That is just me rambling. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We will return to the issue, guys. I agree with those last comments. I am genuinely excited about the Bill, but there is no point in having the legislation if it is not right or does not have teeth. We can add to the Bill, however. We can propose amendments via our party or via the Committee. We have options.

Mr McCrossan: It is not just about the owners of private property. There are also significant, wealthy organisations that are not looking after their properties. I had a public row with Royal Mail over a historic sorting office. Only because of the exposure generated did it say, "OK, we'll regenerate it". It was a listed building. There is an endless list of buildings, including banks, although banks would rather close than do up their buildings in town centres these days. Equally, there are public buildings such as libraries that are in a terrible state. A lick of paint will not be put on the front of the building, and that can have a detrimental impact on how a town centre looks. Public organisations need to lead from the front and make sure that they look after and maintain their properties. That should happen before we go after ratepayers.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you, Suzie. We really appreciate your briefing. It was a good session.

Members, the Committee Clerk wants to say something useful.

The Committee Clerk: It is a reminder. I want to pick up on something Suzie said, Chair. Last week, we had the draft guidance in our tabled papers, and that has now gone out to councils for comment. Presumably, it will be a little while before it comes back to us.

Departmental officials are already working with DFC officials on amending the title of clause 11, which is currently "Defective premises notice". DFC picked up on the fact that the wording is too close to that in the Defective Premises Act and thus may cause confusion, so work is under way for the Minister to table an amendment to that clause heading. DFC officials will be with us next week, so we can go into that then.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Thank you, Clerk. Thank you, Suzie.