COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT
(Hansard)
Housing (Amendment) Bill
2 April 2009
Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr David Simpson (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Miss Michelle McIlveen
Ms Cáral N í Chuilín
Witnesses:
Mr Michael Sands )
Mr Stephen Martin ) Department for Social Development
Ms Avril Hiles
The Chairperson:
I welcome Mr Michael Sands, Mr Stephen Martin and Ms Avril Hiles. I invite Mr Sands to make his presentation. Committee members will then ask questions.
Mr Michael Sands (Department for Social Development):
I am pleased to have a further opportunity to speak to the Committee about the draft housing (amendment) Bill — I mean that.
The Chairperson:
Do you mean that? You did not sound too genuine. [Laughter.]
Mr Sands:
Did I not sound sincere? Shall I start again?
The Committee has received written briefings that provide a high-level description of the content of the draft Bill, along with details of the proposed amendments to the existing legislation. Since I briefed the Committee on the proposals for new housing legislation on 18 September 2008, the housing (amendment) Bill has been drafted, and the Minister hopes that it will be considered by the Executive Committee later this month and introduced in the Assembly in May. At the moment, we are aiming for the Executive meeting on 23 April, although we are still waiting for clearance from the deputy First Minister’s office, and we are pursuing that.
The Committee will be aware that the purpose of the Bill is to refresh the legislative framework by updating existing housing legislation. Although no new policies are involved, the measures in the Bill will ensure greater effectiveness and transparency in the operation of housing-related services. That will help to lay the groundwork for further legislation, which may be required to roll out the Minister’s housing agenda.
The content of the Bill, as drafted, is much as I suggested it would be when I briefed the Committee in September 2008. Therefore, it is proposed that the Housing Executive should be required to have a homelessness strategy that will be drawn up in accordance with precise requirements that will be set out in the Bill. There will also be entitlement to free advice about homelessness and a statutory right to review of decisions of homelessness applications, which will be broadly based on an equivalent provision that operates in England.
The Housing Executive and registered housing associations would be enabled to regain possession of abandoned accommodation that had been let under introductory tenancies, without unnecessary expense or delay. They would be in a position to legally dispose of any property that might be found on those premises.
Amendments to the legislation on antisocial behaviour would put social landlords in a better position to regain possession where a tenant has been convicted in connection with using his or her home for illegal or immoral purposes. The Housing Executive would be able to ensure that tenancies are not awarded to persons who are unsuitable to be tenants by reason of their unacceptable behaviour.
The Department’s role in monitoring housing associations would be enhanced by the power to act in a more timely manner to protect the interests of associations and tenants alike. The number of representatives of the Northern Ireland Housing Council on the board of the Housing Executive would be increased from three to four. That would help to ensure that the board would be more representative of political opinion in Northern Ireland.
The Committee will recall that it had some concerns about the proposal to amend the definition of a house in multiple occupation. After careful consideration, we have decided to retain those proposals in the draft Bill, and I hope that the Minister’s letter of 4 November 2008 to the Chairperson of the Committee has addressed any remaining concerns that the Committee may have.
The draft Bill also introduces some technical amendments to clarify certain provisions of the Private Tenancies ( Northern Ireland) Order 2006. I know that the Committee wishes further amendments to be made to that Order to enable the Department to make a registered rent increase Order that would focus only on properties that meet the fitness standard. The Department shares that aim.
Unfortunately, any changes to the Bill at this point would jeopardise its passage through the Assembly. We would have to go back to the Office of the Legislative Counsel, which would then have to return to the Executive. That would create a delay, and we would be likely to miss our slot with the Assembly. However, there will be an opportunity to incorporate the necessary amendments at the Committee Stage, and I confirm that the Minister intends to seek the Executive’s approval to table a Government amendment at that time.
The Department, therefore, would welcome the Committee’s support for the Bill. I am happy to answer any questions that members may have.
The Chairperson:
On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Minister’s decision to introduce an amendment to the Bill on the registered rent issue. You said that that would be addressed at the Committee Stage and that the Department has agreed to look at that. We welcome the flexible approach, and hopefully that will go well for the Bill when it starts to travel.
The Committee is hopeful that a number of issues that have been brought to us by outside bodies will be dealt with in a similar fashion. Have the Housing Rights Service, Shelter Northern Ireland and the Council for the Homeless, for example, been consulted on the Bill?
Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development):
A number of aspects of the Bill that are relevant to particular organisations have been discussed with them. For example, the provisions for homelessness have been discussed through a steering group on which representatives from the Council for the Homeless sit. The Simon Community and a number of other organisations have been consulted.
The Chairperson:
Have they seen the final form of the Bill?
Mr Martin:
No, and we understand that we are not able to share the final form of the Bill with them until it has been introduced in the Assembly.
Mr Sands:
That can only be done once the Minister stands up to introduce the Bill.
The Chairperson:
When the Bill comes to Committee Stage, people will have issues, and the Committee will also have an input.
Mr F McCann:
Over the course of the Bill’s passage, a number of other issues will need to be raised. Some people would argue that the Bill itself is a fairly lightweight measure to tackle some of the problems. On the question of seizing a tenancy or home, will you elaborate on what is meant by “illegal or immoral purpose”? Is there a list that details what that is?
Mr Sands:
Not precisely. It is a broad, almost generic, term, which could cover a lot of things. The difficulty in trying to define precisely in the legislation what an illegal or immoral purpose might be obviously precludes certain things.
Mr F McCann:
Who will take the decision on whether something is illegal or immoral?
Mr Martin:
I can clarify that. We are changing a very small part of the legislation. Currently the legislation states that the Housing Executive can seize a tenancy under those circumstances, but that is unenforceable. Using one’s house for an illegal or immoral purpose is not a specific offence. We are changing the wording to state that a tenancy can be seized when an offence involving using the property for an illegal or immoral purpose has been committed. That can cover a range of things, as interpreted by the courts. It will be up to the courts to decide. That change to the wording would make the legislation enforceable. The current legislation, as it stands, is unenforceable.
Mr F McCann:
It seems to be open-ended.
Mr Martin:
Ultimately, it would be up to the courts to decide what such an offence would be. At present the legislation is unworkable without that small change.
Mr F McCann:
I know that we are stuck for time, but I wish to raise a point about homelessness. I know that the broad voluntary housing sector was involved in the early stages of drawing up the social inclusion and homelessness policy, but there were some concerns that, because of the time it took to launch the Bill, some of the aspects of it would be outdated. If the Housing Executive is being asked to review the policy every five years, first, would that be done right away, and secondly, would those broad voluntary housing organisations be taken into consideration again in relation to any aspects that need to be changed?
Mr Martin:
Yes. The Housing Executive is currently reviewing the 2002 homelessness strategy — which it produced voluntarily — as a basis for producing a new strategy once the Bill becomes law. It plans to involve and engage all of the relevant organisations in the voluntary and community sector and across Government.
Mr F McCann:
There is a big difference between “engaging” and “taking on board” the difficulties that people may have.
Mr Martin:
The Housing Executive has a very good working relationship with a number of key stakeholders in the sector, including the Housing Rights Service and the Council for the Homeless. It will be building on those existing relationships.
Mr Sands:
Of course, we will have to consider those comments.
Mr F McCann:
It is an issue that we should certainly return to. Another issue that must be considered, and which was brought up by the Housing Rights Service and some other organisations, is who the Housing Executive determines as being homeless and how it deals with young people, especially 16- and 17-year-olds.
Mr Sands:
There are strict criteria used to determine who is classed as homeless, and who is accepted as a full-duty applicant, as I am sure you are aware.
Mr F McCann:
I take it that, in drawing up the Bill, we have an opportunity to include young people.
Mr Sands:
Yes.
Mr Martin:
A statutory rule is being developed by the Department, and the Minister has given a commitment on the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds, and that will be brought forward separately from the Bill. That is in development at the moment.
Mr F McCann:
My final point concerns an issue that has been discussed for a while in many communities. When people are arguing with a housing association or the Housing Executive against certain tenancies, they are told that the housing authorities have a duty of care to the applicant. Would the Bill enable people to argue that there is also a duty of care to the communities into which those housing organisations would be moving people? At present, they say that there is no duty of care to communities.
Mr Sands:
That is not part of the Bill at the moment. If there is something that you feel should be inserted in the Bill, Mr McCann, you should take the opportunity to request that.
The Chairperson:
There is an amendment proposed in the Bill, that in dealing with a refusal of housing due to the suitability of a tenant, the legislation be amended to include any person in a household who is deemed to be an unsuitable tenant rather than the applicants themselves. Why is that terminology being used?
Mr Martin:
This is about the application of the law. At present, an individual is an applicant until he or she has been accepted. Once the individual has been accepted, he or she is no longer an applicant. Therefore, the law has not been enforceable. Currently, evidence of antisocial behaviour that comes to light after an individual has been accepted cannot be taken into account. The change that we are proposing here — [Interruption.]
The Chairperson:
Say that again.
Mr Martin:
We are proposing to change the word “applicant” to “person” in the legislation. Once an applicant has been accepted for social housing, he or she is no longer an applicant. The law, as it stands, does not allow us to take into account any active antisocial behaviour that comes to light after a person has been accepted. The change in the law that we are proposing will enable us to do so.
The Chairperson:
That is better reasoning.
Ms Lo:
Will that include other people, such as children, who live in the house, or will it relate only to the person who applied for the tenancy?
Mr Sands:
I think that it will include the other people. There would be no point in restricting it to the person who is named on the registered rent book. If two or three children in the family, or older persons, are causing the mayhem, the family would be concerned, and not the individual.
Ms Lo:
Have you consulted with the Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland? We are making amendments to the Private Tenancies ( Northern Ireland) Order 2006 as well. I was talking to representatives from the association, and they are keen to be consulted.
Ms Avril Hiles (Department for Social Development):
They were not specifically consulted on the proposals that will be introduced, but we are engaging with them regularly on all issues relating to the private-rented sector.
Ms Lo:
They did not know that this was coming up. I was invited to speak to them at their AGM.
Ms Hiles:
I will make sure that they are made aware of it.
Mr Sands:
You will appreciate that we are still talking about the content of it.
The Chairperson:
Departmental officials are coming to the Committee on 30 April to talk about the private-rented sector strategy.
Mr F McCann:
The Committee has been taxed about the private landlords issue for a considerable time. I assume that we will get a paper before 30 April.
Mr Sands:
You will receive a briefing as you did for this meeting.
The Chairperson:
It will be useful to receive that prior to the presentation.
Mr Sands:
Now that we know the format that the Committee Clerk requires, we know what to do.
The Chairperson:
We will certainly let you know.
Ms Lo:
The Assembly has had one or two debates on issues relating to private tenancies, such as a register of landlords, and deposit schemes. Will those be reviewed in the housing (amendment) Bill?
Ms Hiles:
No. They will not be included in this Bill, but they are the subject of the consultation paper with which we will be coming to you on 30 April. The briefing paper for that is being finalised as we speak. Hopefully, you will have that shortly. Issues, such as disputes, tenancy deposits, registration and licensing will be rehearsed in that document.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
The concerns about a tenant who will be liable for the antisocial behaviour of, for instance, their children or other family members should also apply in the private-rented sector. I think that it is included in this Bill, but there seems to have been a lack of clarity from you.
Mr Sands:
This legislation will apply only to social housing; it will not apply to the private-rented sector. The private tenancies Order might provide an opportunity to consider it, but this Bill deals with social housing only.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
If tenants, or families under a tenancy, are being antisocial, and the tenant has refused to address concerns, the tenancy will be removed, even if the tenant is not the perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour. Is that the case?
Mr Sands:
Yes. The tenant named on the rent book may not be culpable: however, it could be the spouse or the family who are creating antisocial behaviour. In that case, we would have to consider whether the family could continue in that tenancy.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
If the family is to be held responsible, are there going to be safeguards regarding those members of the family who are not responsible for the antisocial behaviour?
Mr Martin:
We should clarify that the only proposals regarding antisocial behaviour in this Bill are intended to clarify existing law. The existing law still stands. I am not fully au fait with the present legal position on this: it is something we can check before we next appear before the Committee.
Mr Sands:
There is no point in having it just for the registered tenant.
Ms Ní Chuilín:
We will need clarification of the legal position.
The Chairperson:
Why has the amendment relating to the designation of houses in multiple occupancy not gone to public consultation? Are local councils being consulted on that?
Mr Sands:
It has not gone out to consultation because it will be included in the Bill that will come before you. We are doing this as a consequence of comments made by a judge because of a particular set of circumstances. We are changing the definition to include uncle, aunt, nephew and niece to ensure that they are excluded from the definition. Any of us might have an aunt or uncle living with us for a short period, but we would not want our houses to be considered as HMOs. The purpose of the provision is to clarify the definition, so that such circumstances will not bring houses into the category of a HMO.
The Chairperson:
Have councils and housing associations been consulted?
Mr Sands:
I am not aware that they have.
Mr Martin:
The Bill will enshrine in legislation what the Housing Executive, which runs the registration scheme, has been doing since the judge declared his position.
A number of Members have raised the issue of the draft ‘Belfast Houses in Multiple Occupation Subject Plan for Belfast City Council Area 2015’ and levels of HMOs. The definition, as it stands in law, has been challenged and shown to be weak. The draft HMO plan for Belfast, developed by the Planning Service, is unenforceable without a change in definition. We admit that this has not been consulted on as widely as we would like; however, to address some of the wider concerns about the numbers of HMOs and proper enforcement, we feel that it is absolutely essential that it is brought forward as soon as possible.
The Chairperson:
We will return to this subject. Are members content with what they have heard, or do you need more a searching investigation?
Ms Ní Chuilín:
We have already asked for further clarification.
The Chairperson:
Yes. Are Members content?
Members indicated assent.
The Chairperson:
The witnesses have had a very easy ride: the next one might not be as easy.
Mr Sands:
It is one of the benefits of coming late on the agenda.
The Committee Clerk:
Are members content for the Committee Clerk to follow up with the Department on the questions that they have not had time to ask?
Members indicated assent.
The Committee Clerk:
Do members agree that the questions that they asked were answered? If they do not agree, they can be asked again in writing. Perhaps members will let me know afterwards if they did not receive satisfactory answers.