COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Proposed Housing Bill
18 September 2008
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Alban Maginness
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín
Witnesses:
Ms Allison Kingsmill )
Mr Stephen Martin ) Department for Social Development
Mr Michael Sands )
Ms Janet Hunter ) Housing Rights Service
Ms Nicola McCrudden )
The Chairperson (Mr Simpson):
There will now be a briefing on the proposed housing Bill from Michael Sands, the deputy director of the housing division, Stephen Martin, head of housing policy research and legislation, and Allison Kingsmill, also from the housing division. A briefing paper has been provided, and Michael will begin the presentation.
Mr Michael Sands (Department for Social Development):
Thank you for the invitation to today’s meeting and for the opportunity to present the Committee with the contents of the proposed housing Bill. The Committee has already received the written briefing, which aims to put the Bill in context and to provide information on the contents and on the consultation already undertaken.
Before I give the Committee further information on the Bill, I will explain briefly how the contents of the proposed legislation were selected and why certain issues that members might have expected to be included in it have not been included.
On 26 February 2008, the Minister announced in the Assembly a wide range of measures to tackle the housing crisis as well as introducing the new housing agenda. Some of those planned measures can be progressed administratively, whereas others require new primary legislation. However, that process cannot begin until further policy research has been completed. One of the foremost issues at present is affordability, and legislation on that may have been anticipated, although very few of the recommendations of the Semple Report actually require legislation. For example, the introduction of empty-homes management orders does not.
One of the key issues identified, that of securing developer contributions for affordable and social housing, is achievable through present planning law. That includes both the transfer of housing and/or land, and cumulative sums from developers. For the sake of clarity, it may be better to have that provision in housing law; that will be something to be considered for the future.
The Minister has already signalled her intention to introduce two further pieces of primary legislation during this Assembly’s mandate. Although, individually, the measures included in the proposed housing Bill may appear minor, together they offer the opportunity to refresh and update the current legislation and ensure greater effectiveness and transparency in the operation of housing-related services.
The contents of the Bill were selected either because they were recommendations from earlier consultations, were recommended by a judge in a judicial review, or, in some cases, in order to clarify policy intention where the wording has made it difficult for the Housing Executive and housing associations to operate the law. Other amendments are of a technical nature — in one case, for example, to correct a numbering error and in another to substitute a word.
The provisions dealing with homelessness are the product of consultation arising from work undertaken to develop and implement the strategy for promoting the social inclusion of homeless people. That consultation resulted in several recommendations; among them a statutory requirement for the Housing Executive to have a homelessness strategy and for certain bodies to participate in the development of that strategy. The recommendations also include the entitlement to free advice about homelessness and the statutory right to a review of decisions taken by the Housing Executive under the homelessness legislation, backed by a right of appeal to the courts on points of law.
A further proposal would enable the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to regain possession of abandoned accommodation let under introductory tenancies. That provision is already available for secure tenancies. It will enable social landlords to recover a house without incurring the delay and expense involved in obtaining an order for possession. It would also allow for the disposal of any property found on the premises, thus avoiding excessive storage costs. Although the numbers involved are likely to be small, the provision is important in ensuring that accommodation can be re-let quickly to people on the waiting list.
An amendment is proposed to the Housing ( Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which will increase from three to four the number of representatives of the Northern Ireland Housing Council on the board of the Housing Executive. The purpose of housing council representation on the board is to ensure that local government has a voice in high-level decision making on housing matters. Time has moved on, and a change to voting patterns now means that the original three housing council seats on the Housing Executive board are no longer fully representative of the political make-up of Northern Ireland’s district councils.
For that reason, an additional place on the board has been created, but it requires the sanction of statutory authority. The need to amend the definition of a house in multiple occupation has become necessary because of criticism made by a judge during a judicial review hearing in March 2005. The judge commented that under the current definition, a house occupied by an extended family could be wrongly classified as a house in multiple occupation, and therefore would be required to register under the houses in multiple occupation registration scheme. The Department has consulted the Housing Executive, which is responsible for the regulation of houses in multiple occupation, and is satisfied that the amendment will have the effect that only those properties that are truly houses in multiple occupation will be subject to registration.
The Department has a monitoring role with regard to housing associations, under the Housing ( Northern Ireland) Order 1992. For some time, the Department has been concerned about the extent of the powers available to it where wrongdoing is suspected. The powers sought are to allow the Department to act in a timely manner and to enable action to be taken to protect the assets of an association. Specifically, these are: to suspend a board member; to examine documents held by an association; and to act in advance of a formal inquiry. The remaining provisions would prevent current and former Housing Executive employees from conducting inquiries into the affairs of housing associations. That amendment would place the Housing Executive in a position comparable to the Department and maintain the independent status of an inquiry, thus preventing conflicts of interest.
The proposed Bill is waiting approval to proceed to legislative drafting. We hope that the Minister can introduce the legislation later in the autumn. The Committee will then have the opportunity to scrutinise closely its individual elements.
The Minister wrote to the Chairperson on 13 June, enclosing a detailed briefing. A short summary of proposals was issued to the Committee on 11 September. Members therefore have a great deal of information on this matter, but if they have questions I will attempt to answer them.
The Chairperson:
Members, have you questions for Mr Sands? I will begin with a question on antisocial behaviour. Do you think that the Department has gone far enough?
Mr Sands:
It is a difficult issue and a major problem. Our proposals will support the provision that the Housing Executive has made for dealing, in liaison with district councils, with anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs). They will also allow it and the housing associations to deal with the elements that affect tenancies. For this occasion, and for this issue, they are appropriate.
Antisocial behaviour is a wide issue and it affects many people; in daily life it is such a nuisance to us all. However, as far as the housing element is concerned, the provisions contained in these proposals should satisfactorily allow the Housing Executive and housing associations to deal with tenants who create antisocial behaviour and cause misery for others.
The Chairperson:
The emphasis should be on the misery.
Ms Lo:
I welcome the proposal for a strategy on homelessness, which is sorely needed. We need the involvement of the various Departments, for example, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department for Employment and Learning. However, we have the example of neighbourhood renewal: other Departments failed to buy into it. How will you avoid that same scenario, whereby other Departments pay lip-service but do not come up with the cash or action set out in the strategy?
Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development):
We have set up a steering group, comprised of representatives of all the Departments. It has been difficult to engage some of them, but there are good examples of how we have worked closely with the voluntary sector to bring Departments to the table.
I offer an example: following intervention from the steering group, the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety has set up a £100,000 pilot scheme for delivery of primary care services to homeless people who would not otherwise have access to them. That additional money was generated through the work of the steering group. Some Departments have engaged and that has produced tangible results. Others are further behind, but we are working closely with them to engage them more fully.
Ms Lo:
Another issue of concern to the voluntary sector is the freezing of the budget over the next three years for the Supporting People programme. Groups such as the Simon Community are finding it very difficult to manage their budgets, given increases in staff salaries, rising fuel prices and inflation. How can we say on the one hand that we want to improve services that deal with homelessness, while, on the other hand, not support such a vital programme. How can we address that?
Mr Sands:
The Minister and the Department are acutely aware of the position as far as the Supporting People programme is concerned. Due to difficulties such as schemes not opening when addressing the requirements for the Supporting People programme, the Housing Executive, since April 2003 when that programme came into place, has never been able to utilise the available budget for that scheme fully. Money, therefore, has been going back into the centre, and this is the first year that we face what appears to be a difficulty; there may not be enough funding at this time, but that remains to be seen.
We have already made provisions in the Housing Executive that, should monitoring round bids be unsuccessful, we will be able to cover additional funding. As that is happening in-year, we will have to monitor that situation closely to see how it will pan out.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Anna is right to be concerned about whether neighbourhood renewal will be a joined-up strategy. The Department of Health has put a certain amount of money towards dealing with the health issues that arise from homelessness, but it had to do that anyway under it own bids, so it is not as if that Department has bought into this programme and is kicking in behind it; it is a coincidence.
I have two issues: first, tenants do not all have the same rights; there is no standardisation of rights across the housing associations, which is a problem. Secondly, where will the problem of antisocial behaviour fit in? The fact that antisocial behaviour happens demonstrates that, regardless of where you are, there are no standard rights for tenants. That needs to be taken into consideration because it does have a massive impact.
In relation to the Supporting People programme, every Department was supposed to buy into the Bamford Review, not just neighbourhood renewal, and we are still waiting to see the outcome of that. For groups such as Women’s Aid and even the Simon Community there will be massive challenges ahead unless this is sorted out. People who are homeless or who need shelter from harm will be made even more vulnerable, and that needs to be taken on board.
Antisocial behaviour is a huge issue in our communities, notwithstanding the rights of tenants. It has been challenging for those who want to go to the Housing Executive and complain about antisocial neighbours. The onus is on them, with little support, to come up with proof and in the process of coming up with that proof, they are made more vulnerable in an already incendiary situation. I do not deny that there have been malicious claims; however, it is insignificant in comparison to the number of people trying to have the issue of antisocial behaviour addressed. Those points need to be taken into consideration.
Mr Sands:
Those housing associations that we try to assist will generally follow the Housing Executive charter for tenants. Certain tweaks may have to be made, depending on the provision of different types of accommodation; where the charter provides for certain activities, it cannot apply to people in supported housing. However, we have tried to ensure that when we were going through the regulation and inspections procedures, tenants’ rights in supported housing and how those tenants are respected follow as closely as possible what the Housing Executive has set down.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Sorry, Michael, I was not suggesting that the legislation should amend the rights of tenants in supported living.
Mr Sands:
I understand that.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
Variation exists, even among social housing providers.
Mr Sands:
There can be differences among housing associations. The Department is conscious of that, and we will continue to address that issue through the regulation inspection process to take account of the fact that there are major differences among housing associations, meaning that they do not provide a similar standard or a similar service to tenants.
You mentioned the Supporting People programme and the Bamford Review, and we are conscious of the fact that Muckamore Abbey hospital is closing down. The Department will be required to provide alternative accommodation to bring people who should not be in hospital back into the community.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
They are institutionalised because they are homeless.
Mr Sands:
In the comprehensive spending review, the Department bid for an additional £50 million because the Bamford Review suggests than more than 100 patients a year will be released from institutions such as Muckamore Abbey hospital. Providing specific accommodation could cost the Department up to £50 million a year. Although the Department might have a supported housing scheme for 30 people, Bamford suggests that no more than five people should live in any one supported housing scheme and that, preferably, those people should be provided with bungalows that the person could perhaps purchase in about five years, ensuring the principle of independent living.
A major cost is attached to that policy, and we made a bid for additional money. Unfortunately, we did not get a penny from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). I would welcome any support that was available from the Committee to help us with that.
As I said in my answer to the previous question, antisocial behaviour is a very difficult issue. Antisocial behaviour in a social housing estate may be caused by people who are not tenants in the area. It is a policing issue to ensure that there is sufficient security cover on the ground so that antisocial behaviour does not continue where it has been identified. Malicious claims may be made, as such difficulties do exist. However, my remit is housing only.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I am only asking about housing. We can go to the DPP over a policing issue, but I am talking about antisocial behaviour among tenants.
Mr Sands:
The provisions in the proposed Bill will assist in dealing with those tenants so that they can be removed and dealt with.
Mr F McCann:
What is the difference between the present legislation that is operated by the Housing Executive and the proposed legislation? Major difficulties arise, and, although we are conscious that people’s rights must be protected at all times, tenants must also be protected. A happy medium must be struck so that people who live in estates are protected against the constant moving on of people who are classed as antisocial tenants. That is a major problem.
Many people come to my advice centre asking about social housing on finding that there is no obligation to house 16- and 17-year-olds. Are any proposals coming forward to ensure that that practice will come to an end?
The Chairperson:
Can the Committee be provided with a table that sets out the differences between the present and the proposed legislation?
Mr Sands:
We can certainly provide that.
Mr Martin:
The issue of social housing for 16- and 17-year-olds was raised during the consultation on promoting the social inclusion of homeless people. Under homelessness legislation in the rest of the UK, 16- and 17-year-olds have priority need for housing. In Northern Ireland, that is not yet the case. The Department has agreed to consider that provision, which could be introduced by subordinate legislation. There are some issues about the cost and implications of how the legislation would work in practice. The Department is working with the Council for the Homeless, the Housing Executive and health bodies to work out protocols and do costing before introducing such proposals through subordinate legislation.
Mr F McCann:
Can you give us a timeframe?
Mr Martin:
A great deal of work involved, so it is difficult to give a precise time frame; however, it is likely to be introduced within the next year.
Mr F McCann:
I realise that there are many difficulties, but the problem is that when people’s rights to costs are put down, the issue is put on the long finger. More young people are leaving home than ever before, but they are met with a wall when they attempt to apply for any type of accommodation. When they try to declare themselves homeless, they become a statistic. Therefore, there are major difficulties. Could the Committee be updated on proposals to address the issue?
The Council for the Homeless does a good job, but there are many other organisations that deal with the homeless. Their opinions should also be taken into consideration, because many of them have good ideas for addressing the problem.
Mr Martin:
You raised a couple of issues. Our real concern is that 16- and 17-year-olds do not fall between two stools. The Department of Health and its bodies have responsibilities for 16- and 17-year-olds. In developing the legislation, we want to ensure that they do not fall between the responsibilities of the Housing Executive and the Department of Health and get no assistance.
Our initial research shows that approximately 100 people between the ages of 16 and 17 get no assistance, because they would be considered as vulnerable people and would be assessed under the homelessness legislation. Consequently, every year approximately 100 people between the ages of 16 and 17 are not deemed to be homeless and are not in priority need, and that is the group that we must target.
We are consulting other organisations apart from the Council for the Homeless. The steering group on promoting the social inclusion of homeless people has representatives from a broad range of organisations, including the Housing Rights Service, and I understand that its representatives will address the Committee shortly. We are taking on board a broad range of views.
Every six months, we update the Committee on our progress on homelessness. We could do that more frequently or we could ensure that we highlight the issue during our updates. We are prepared to provide whatever information the Committee requires.
Mr F McCann:
Could you also provide other groups with that information?
Mr Martin:
We will discuss that issue. The Council for the Homeless is a representative organisation with many different member groups; therefore, we can hold joint discussions on how to undertake consultation with other groups.
Mr F McCann:
The housing selection scheme is not covered in the Bill, but I know that a review was being carried out on it. I have met a couple of Ministers to discuss the issue and its impact on areas of high demand; in many cases, people get caught up in hostels for years. In many ways, we are going back to the 1950s and 1960s when two or three families lived in the same home. Perhaps the system could be tweaked to take areas of high demand into consideration. Is there any update on that?
Mr Sands:
The review of the housing selection scheme is nearly finished, and the Housing Executive has been involved in addressing it. It is with the Department for assessment, and I am confident that it will move forward quickly and make recommendations that will come to the Committee for consideration.
Mr F McCann:
Detailed guidance and advice is given in Scotland and England, but the Housing Executive provides its own advice. Could DSD ensure that the form and content of this advice and information will be included in the detailed guidance?
Mr Sands:
Yes. The proposed Bill contains provisions whereby the Department may set out the requirements and information that must be passed on, so we can do that.
Miss McIlveen:
I see that the definition of “family” regarding a house in multiple occupation will be broadened. I am concerned that tenuous family links could be considered and, as a result, fewer properties would have to be brought up to a high safety standard. Will that be consulted on, and do you feel that that will be an issue?
Mr Sands:
As I said in my opening remarks, we had to amend the definition because of a remark that was made by a judge during a judicial review. He gave the example of his elderly aunt coming live in his house for a short time because she was having work done to her own home and of his home thereby becoming a HMO because she was not his immediate family. He would then have to register for that. The Department in England concur that that would be a ridiculous situation.
Our amendment will ensure that that can happen without people being subject to the HMO inspection procedures. It is difficult, and we are sure that there will be problems in certain families in even identifying who a member of the family is. We talked about migrant workers — they try to live in extended-family circumstances when they come here. Those issues can be very difficult to deal with. We are trying to ensure that the HMO legislation will apply only to those houses that are, strictly speaking, in multiple occupation.
Miss McIlveen:
I understand where you are coming from, but I am also concerned that unscrupulous landlords could take advantage of the fact that expensive property upgrades would not be necessary if relations are present.
Mr Sands:
The information that we received from Scotland indicates that that has not presented a problem; however, it remains to be seen whether it will be a problem here. It could become a problem, but it would very difficult to police and restrict.
Miss McIlveen:
I appreciate that.
Mr Burns:
I want to bring Michael back to when we talked about the Bamford Review and independent living. You bid for £50 million, but you did not get any of it. How much of that money would come from the Health Service?
Mr Sands:
I cannot answer that; the Department of Finance and Personnel would deal with that. We make bids to the centre and DFP decides who gets what out of the Northern Ireland block; however, I do not know which specific Department might have to contribute to it.
Mr Burns:
Mr McGimpsey gave a commitment to the people in the Muckamore Abbey forensic unit that people who had been there for a long time would be re-housed. He said that that was an intolerable situation and that those people would be moved into accommodation. There has been some movement on that but nowhere near enough. You said that you are not building the houses for them. Looking after those people — providing the wardens and the backup — is definitely the responsibility of the Health Service. Do you build the houses and then hand them over to the trust?
Mr Sands:
No. They would be built specifically as social housing. Whenever we bid for the £50 million, we also bid for Supporting People funding, so that is not purely a Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety responsibility. There would be requirements, certainly as far as Supporting People is concerned. I did not make that clear when I mentioned the £50 million, but there was a corresponding part.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
The £50 million was not all capital.
Mr Sands:
The £50 million is all capital. It would have been spent purely on bricks and mortar to build those properties. We also put in a bid for Supporting People funding because of the consequentials required. If we bid for the £50 million now and received that provision next year, it could be two years before the requirement would come through for the Supporting People budget.
The £50 million was purely for social housing. If we had wanted to provide that in the way that the Bamford Review suggested, they would be in much smaller units and would have cost more.
The Bamford Review specifically suggested that individual bungalows should be provided for those people. However, difficulties arise according to a person’s ability to live in and look after such a house, especially if it has a garden. Many difficulties are associated with such provision; furthermore, bungalows cost half as much again as providing other separate accommodation.
The Chairperson:
Thank you for your presentation.
We shall move directly to our next briefing from representatives of the Housing Rights Service. We welcome Janet Hunter, director, and Nicola McCrudden, policy and communications manager. I must congratulate you on the format of the paper that you have submitted, which is down to Nicola. That will mean that a bonus is coming your way.
Ms Nicola McCrudden (Housing Rights Service):
That is why Janet is taking the lead today. [Laughter.]
The Chairperson:
Nevertheless, congratulations. Your submission is simple and easy to follow.
Ms Janet Hunter (Housing Rights Service):
Thank you for inviting us to comment at this stage of the legislative process — the earlier the better.
The Housing Rights Service has operated in Northern Ireland for more than 40 years. It is an independent voluntary organisation that provides advice, training and legal information on housing and homeless matters. Many of the matters that we deal with are complex, and therefore we use housing legislation every day. That is why we have a keen interest in any proposed changes to existing legislation or new legislation, as that will affect the everyday work that we do with our clients.
As the Chairman said, we have provided members with a short briefing paper, and we propose to go through it. We will not cover all the proposals in it, because, as the Department indicated, most of them are neither contentious nor controversial. Therefore, in the interests of brevity, I will mention proposals with which we have some concern or which we feel could be improved. We will then address any questions that you may have.
We are happy with the proposals that deal with homelessness. They were widely consulted on as part of the formulation of the homelessness strategy, which was launched last year. The only point to which we wish to draw members’ attention concerns the proposal to place a statutory duty on the Housing Executive to ensure that housing advice is available to people. Obviously, we want to support that, because it acknowledges the key role that good-quality, timely housing advice can have in preventing people from losing their home or enabling them to get a new home.
It is not simply a matter of giving people a list of landlords; that does nothing to address homelessness. The Department needs to be proactive in ensuring that the housing Bill delivers good-quality, timely advice for people. To be meaningful it needs to provide the right advice, in the right place, at right time. The Department needs to carry out further work to ensure that the Bill delivers on that.
Similar provision exists in England, Wales and Scotland — in Scotland for almost 20 years. Furthermore, those jurisdictions have provided detailed guidance covering a range of topics. Moreover, they have ensured that the level of advice is available while ensuring the quality of that advice. In Scotland, national standards for the provision of housing advice have been developed and providers have been asked to become accredited to them. We would welcome similar criteria and standards in Northern Ireland, and it is necessary if this provision is to be meaningful for people.
Annex B of our briefing paper discusses amendments aimed at clarifying existing legislation. Those are largely amendments where — we are told — the existing wording has caused difficulties for the Housing Executive or the housing associations in operating the law. We have a few comments to make about those amendments, the first of which is the proposal to repossess abandoned accommodation, let under introductory tenancies.
At present, there is an anomaly with such tenancies, as introductory tenants — in the first 12 months of their tenancies — are in a different situation from those with secure tenancies. We wholeheartedly agree that that anomaly exists, and we wholeheartedly agree that the remedy suggested by the Department is the appropriate one. However, secure tenants, if they feel aggrieved by the process do have a right of appeal to county court. If the process is extended to introductory tenancies, the right of appeal should be extended to them also; otherwise, we will close one anomaly and open another.
The Housing Rights Service also supports the recommendation that there should be a statutory requirement on the Housing Executive to publish its policies and procedures in relation to antisocial behaviour. However, that should be extended to all social landlords, and housing association tenants should not be treated any differently from Housing Executive tenants in that respect. We find that it is often more difficult to give useful advice to housing association tenants, because there is not always the same transparency with policies and procedures
Also contained in annex B is the amendment that has given us the most cause for concern. That is the proposal to change the word “applicant ” to “person ”. That relates to part of the Housing ( Northern Ireland) Order 2003 that, in effect, allows the Housing Executive to make people ineligible for social housing as a result of their behaviour in the past.
That provision was very contentious and sensitive at the time of its introduction. There was much debate surrounding it in which the Housing Rights Service was closely involved. Any proposal to change even a word — in that part of the legislation — should be the subject of close scrutiny.
Those amendments are supposedly about trying to address difficulties in operating the law at present. However, we are not aware of what difficulties that provision — as currently worded — presents. For the service to form a view about whether this is justified or even necessary, we believe that more information is required to explain the difficulties that the present wording is causing. We also ask how many unsuitable tenants the Housing Executive has felt obliged to house as a consequence of this word being “applicant ” rather than “person ”.
If current practice is to change, how many more people might be excluded from social housing? Such information would be necessary for the Housing Rights Service to form a proper view on the proposal.
A further issue concerns the fact that the wording of the EWS section of the 2003 Housing (Northern Ireland) Order was imported verbatim from the relevant legislation already in force in England. Certainly, to my knowledge, the only change was the substitution of the words “local authority” for the words “Housing Executive”. Has that legislation caused any difficulty in England? Are there any proposals to change it there, and, if not, why is there a proposal to make the change here? Is the change really necessary? It may be, but there is no evidence to suggest that it is. It has not caused our organisation any difficulty in working with our clients.
A final comment I wish to make is outlined in annex C of our submission and concerns the provision in the proposed Bill to amend the definition of houses in multiple occupation. We are fully aware of the background to the proposal and of the facts of the case. We know that when the results of a judicial review were delivered during the spring of 2005, the judge said that there was a need to review the definition. Our organisation does not dispute that there is a need to review it, but our view is that the proposed Bill is not the appropriate piece of legislation with which to do that, and it may not be the appropriate change to make.
The preamble in the covering letter that we received from the Minister suggested that none of the proposals in the Bill would result in a change of policy intention and also suggested that appropriate consultation had been carried out. However, such an amendment in the proposed Bill ticks neither of those boxes. The result of the proposed amendment, as was quite rightly pointed out, would be that some people who are at present afforded the protection of the regulatory framework that surrounds HMOs will no longer be afforded that protection. That is a substantial change, and, therefore, there should have been consultation with all the stakeholders before it was included in the proposed legislation. Our organisation is one of those stakeholders. Many of the issues that we deal with involve clients living in HMOs.
We have not been consulted about that aspect of the proposed Bill; the first we knew of it was when we received the documentation from the Clerk of this Committee. As far as we are aware, councils have not been consulted on the proposed amendment either, and we consider them to be stakeholders too — indeed, we understand that there are plans for the entire responsibility for HMOs to be transferred to councils under the review of public administration. Councils should have been consulted before the proposed Bill reached this advanced stage.
We agree that the definition of HMO should be reviewed. However, there must be an informed debate, and that should have taken place before the amendment was included in proposed legislation. The Department has indicated that subsequent legislation is planned —our view is that that subsequent legislation would be a better place to deal with a proposed change in definition.
That covers the main points to which our organisation wishes to draw the Committee’s attention. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
I certainly agree, as, I am sure, do other members, that the Housing Rights Service is one of the major stakeholders on the issue. There is a tendency for the Department to sidestep and shuffle around consultation and equality impact assessments. The proposed change to the definition of HMOs will give rise to equality impact issues. Another important issue to which you adverted is the need to alert authorities to the risk of people losing their homes through repossession. The trauma and stress involved in losing one’s home and moving into a hostel is huge, and any assistance in ensuring a smooth transition should be welcomed.
I did not pick up from your presentation the seriousness of changing the wording in the legislation from “applicant” to “person”. That is why these presentations are so helpful.
You mentioned section 11 of the Homelessness etc ( Scotland) Act 2003. Have you any other comparisons? According to your commentary on the consultation, the Department intends to:
“amend the law to require lenders and landlords to notify NIHE of repossession intentions”.
Ms McCrudden:
As part of the consultation on the Promoting Social Inclusion initiative on homelessness, recommendations were made by consultees, including our organisation and the Council for the Homeless. One of those was that a duty should be placed on lenders and landlords to notify the Housing Executive of their intentions to repossess a property. That would forewarn the Housing Executive that a family was at risk of losing its home and becoming homeless.
An action plan resulted from that consultation. When that recommendation was made, the Department responded that it would consider it. Given the increasing rate of repossessions, it is timely that that proposal is included in the Bill, or, at least, in legislation — and sooner rather than later.
The purpose of this provision is to give the Housing Executive the opportunity to contact the person and ensure that he or she receives good quality advice and determine whether there are options that would enable the person or family to stay in their home and prevent the property from being repossessed. That where my organisation comes in; we provide independent housing debt advice and a representation service.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
As a matter of curiosity, was your organisation contacted as a part of the mortgage rescue scheme that was proposed in February, the outcome of which we await? If so, have you any thoughts on it?
Ms Hunter:
We were deeply involved in that consultation.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
But not in this consultation?
Ms Hunter:
Not in this consultation, or not until this stage.
We produced a briefing paper for that earlier consultation and we have had several meetings with the Department since to give our views on how we would like to see the scheme develop. The mortgage rescue scheme could be a lifeline for clients that we work with. In this climate, lifelines are being gradually withdrawn.
From speaking to our debt advisors daily, I know that not only is the scale of the problem increasing but that solutions are fewer. It is a very difficult environment to work in. The sooner mortgage rescue is on the table as an option for people, the better. We realise that it will not save the homes of thousands of people; however, if it saves the homes of even a hundred people and their families, it is well worthwhile. It offers a lifeline to people who have few other options.
Mr F McCann:
Everyone here can tell horror stories about people who have fallen desperately into debt from trying to cover their mortgages. There is no reason to believe that the situation will not get worse. The indications are that it will be next March before any rescue package is in place. What concerns me is that, at a time when people are in debt to lenders, those lenders send out debt advisors to invite people to take out loans to pay off debts, and then charge perhaps £200 for that advice. We must move to stop that practice.
The DSD Minister, Hanson, had initiated widening the remit of HMOs in certain areas over the past couple of years, and not only throughout the city. That has been continued. The Department intend to change the definition of “family” with respect to HMOs, and recently the Housing Executive held a consultation on that. It told us that the present definition was too narrow.
What is your opinion on that?
Ms McCrudden:
The Housing Executive released a HMO strategy for consultation but did not ask for views on the proposed new definition. The Department was to be lobbied, but the Scottish definition was suggested without our input and — as my colleague Janet said — councils were not involved either.
The new definition appears to have come from a judgement that was passed by Lord Justice Girvan in a case concerning the Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in March 2005. Lord Justice Girvan made the point — which has also been made by our Department colleagues — that if an aunt, for example, moved into a house, that house would then be defined as a HMO.
For that reason, the Department and the Housing Executive have concerns about the definition of family. At present, the definition does not include aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews. Several extended families live together here and, therefore, we consider that there would be merit in extending the definition of family.
However, the proposals go beyond that and suggest rewording the definition of a HMO as well as amending the definition of a family member. The 2002 draft housing Bill proposed implementing the Scottish definition of a HMO. After much debate, it was decided to reject the Scottish definition but now it appears that we are going back to it. I will not bore you with the detail, but the Scottish definition is extremely convoluted and there are various legal interpretations of it.
It is very difficult for landlords to know whether they have a HMO because they do not fully understand what HMOs are. We should be trying to make the definition much simpler and not more complicated.
Ms Hunter:
We believe that the proposed definition is more complicated.
Mr F McCann:
What about the 16- and 17-year-olds who seek accommodation? Every year, the statistics show that ever increasing numbers of people declare themselves homeless. I assume that many of the 10,000 to 12,000 people who are not granted homeless status are aged 16 or 17. How many applications for homeless status are made by 16- to 17-year-olds, and where do they go?
Ms Hunter:
The number of 16- and 17-year-olds who present to the Housing Executive is relatively small — about 400; 500, maximum. Many of those applications are rejected and not awarded priority. It was mentioned that 100 such applications are rejected, but I am not exactly sure where that figure came from. We have asked the Housing Executive for a breakdown of the people who are not awarded full-duty applicant status — ages, family profile and so on — but that has never been made available to us.
The applications of some 16- and 17-year-olds are rejected. We are very keen for the legislation to be changed as some young people fall between two stools. If they are turned down by the Housing Executive, it is often recommended that they contact social services. However, social services may then claim that it is not their responsibility because the young person has never been in care. That situation is typical; perhaps it should not happen, but it does happen. It is important that that loophole be tightened so that young people can no longer fall between two stools.
Ms Lo:
I have dealt with cases such as that, when social services say that it is a housing matter and that it has nothing to do with them.
Ms Hunter:
We have been promised a protocol between the Housing Executive and social services to deal with that category of vulnerable people since 1995. That shows how long I have been around; it is a long time for the needs of those young people to have been continually overlooked.
Ms Lo:
Thank you very much for coming to the Committee. I am grateful for expert organisations such as yours alerting us to the potential pitfalls of the legislation.
Do introductory tenancies mean a probationary period of one year before a tenant becomes a secure tenant?
Ms Hunter:
That is right; for all Housing Executive and housing association tenancies, new tenants are now introductory tenants for a 12-month period.
Ms Lo:
Thank you. You made many valid points about HMOs, the meaning of “applicant” and “person”, and the Committee will take them into account. I want to pick up on Carál’s question about the mortgage rescue scheme. We hear every day now that so many people are losing their jobs, and that must have a huge effect on house repossession. We need to ask the Department what progress has been made in that area.
The Chairperson:
I want to thank the two ladies for their presentation.
Ms Hunter:
Thank you very much, Chairperson. When the legislation reaches its Committee scrutiny stage, we would be delighted to help, if you think that we can be of further assistance.
The Chairperson:
That is greatly appreciated. I remind members that we have 45 minutes left in which to finish this meeting, so we will take a bit of time to finish off what we are dealing with and to decide on the way forward. Our Committee Clerk has taken note of the concerns expressed by members. Are members happy that we write to the Minister highlighting all the issues that have been discussed today, in particular those that were raised by the Housing Rights Service, and we will see if we can get a response on that?
Members indicated assent.
Ms Lo:
Can we push for feedback on repossession?
The Chairperson:
Do you mean the mortgage issue? I hope that there will be a presentation on 23 October dealing with that.