3. The purpose of the Bill is to enhance the existing legislative framework in a number of areas, including homelessness. The provisions fall into the following categories:

• Recommendations emerging from earlier consultation;
• Amendments aimed at clarifying existing legislation;
• Amendment required as a consequence of judicial review; and
• Technical amendments.

4. The Bill as drafted consists of 19 clauses.

Clause 1: Homelessness Strategy

Clause 1 deals with the requirement for the Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy every five years. It sets out which bodies should both assist in the formulation and implementation of the strategy. This clause also explains what is meant by a “homelessness strategy".

Clause 2: Duty of Housing Executive to Provide Advice

Clause 2 places a requirement on the Housing Executive to ensure that advice about homelessness, and the prevention of homelessness, is available free of charge and enables the Housing Executive to pay grants or to make loans or other assistance available to persons providing such advice.

Clause 3: Eligibility for Housing Assistance

Clause 3 will substitute the word “a person" for “an applicant" to clarify the power of the Housing Executive to treat persons guilty of unacceptable behaviour as ineligible for housing assistance. It also requires the Housing Executive to notify a person who is found to be ineligible for homelessness assistance of the decision and the reason(s) for the decision.

Clause 4: Power of Department to Prescribe Form of Advice and Assistance

Clause 4 enables the Department to prescribe the kind of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive is required to provide to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness but do not meet the full statutory criteria for re-housing.

Clause 5: Reviews of Decisions in Relation to Homelessness

Clause 5 will provide applicants for homelessness assistance with a statutory option to request a review of the decisions taken by the Housing Executive on their application and will provide a subsequent right to appeal to the country court on a point of law. This clause also confers power on the Department to make regulations dealing with the procedure for carrying out such a review.

Clause 6: Power to Obtain Information from Registered Housing Associations

Clause 6 contains provisions to replace and strengthen the existing power to monitor registered housing associations. The clause will permit the Department to serve a notice requiring information which would assist it in discharging its functions on a wider class of people than was previously the case. Clause 6 also makes provision for procedural matters relating to the serving of a notice.

Clause 7: Restriction on Inquiry into Affairs of Registered Housing Associations by Persons Associated with the Housing Executive

Clause 7 aims to maintain the independent status of an inquiry by preventing existing and former members or employees of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from taking part in inquiries into the affairs of registered housing associations.

Clause 8: Department’s Powers in Cases of Misconduct or Mismanagement of Registered Housing Associations

Clause 8 enables the Department, where it has a reasonable belief that there has been misconduct or mismanagement in relation to a registered housing association and where circumstances warrant this, to take immediate action to protect the interests of the housing association or the tenants at any time after the commencement of an inquiry or audit (rather than waiting until the production of an interim report as is the position under the current legislation).

Clause 9: Abandonment of Introductory Tenancies

Clause 9 brings the rules regarding the repossession of abandoned introductory tenancy properties into line with those for secure tenancies. It provides the tenant with a subsequent right of appeal to the court and makes provision in relation to the type of alternative accommodation which may be provided where the court rules in favour of the tenant.

Clause 10: Anti-Social Behaviour: Housing Executive’s Policies and Procedures

Clause 10 places a statutory requirement on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to publish both its policy in relation to anti-social behaviour and its procedure for dealing with occurrences of anti-social behaviour.

Clause 11: Grounds for Possession: Nuisance or Annoyance to Neighbours, etc.

Clause 11 makes an amendment to the grounds for repossession of a dwelling house held under secure tenancy. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to make use of the grounds for possession relating to the use of premises for immoral or illegal purposes.

Clause 12: Increase in Housing Council Representation on Housing Executive Board

Clause 12 increases the number of Northern Ireland Housing Council nominees on the Board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from three to four.

Clause 13: Amendment of Article 13(6) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (Qualifying Shorthold Tenancies)

Clause 13 is a technical amendment which is to ensure that housing associations are not required to seek the Department’s approval where they wish to offer tenancies on a qualifying shorthold basis.

Clause 14: Definition of “house in multiple occupation"

Clause 14 amends the definition of a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to recognise the fact that members of an extended family living under the same roof normally comprise a single household which should not be subject in law to the full regulatory regime prescribed for HMOs.

Clause 15: Amendment of Article 35(5) of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006

Clause 15 corrects a drafting error in the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

Clause 16: Refusal by district council to issue certificate of human fitness for human habitation

Clause 16 corrects a drafting error in the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

Clause 17: Interpretation

Clause 17 provides for the interpretation of certain expressions used in the Bill.

Clause 18: Commencement

Clause 18 enables the Department to make provision by order.

Clause 19: Short Title

Clause 19 provides that when the Bill receives Royal Assent it shall be known as the Housing (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.

5. During the period covered by this Report, the Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 15 meetings – on 23 April 2009; 21 May 2009; 25 June 2009; 10 September 2009; 17 September 2009; 24 September 2009; 1 October 2009; 8 October 2009; 15 October 2009; 22 October 2009; 5 November 2009, 12 November 2009 and 19 November 2009. The relevant extracts from the Minutes of Proceedings for these meetings are included at Appendix 1.

6. The Committee had before it the Housing (Amendment) Bill (NIA 7/08) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

7. On referral of the Bill to the Committee after Second Stage, the Committee wrote to key stakeholders. On 26 June 2009 advertisements were inserted in the Belfast Telegraph, News Letter and Irish News seeking written evidence on the Bill. In addition, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) notified its members that the Committee was seeking written evidence on the Bill.

8. A total of 43 organisations responded to the request for written evidence and a copy of the submissions received by the Committee is included at Appendix 3.

9. On 18 September 2008, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Committee took evidence from Departmental officials on the purpose and main provisions of the proposed Bill. The Committee also took evidence from Housing Rights Service on 18 September 2008. The Committee took further evidence from Departmental officials on 2 April 2009. Following the referral of the Bill for Committee Stage, the Committee took evidence from the Housing Rights Service, the Simon Community NI and the Council for the Homeless NI on 17 September 2009; the NI Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the Equality Commission on 24 September 2009; the Chartered Institute of Housing NI, the NI Federation of Housing, Supporting Communities NI, the NI Housing Council on 1 October 2009. The Committee held a further evidence session with the Department on the 8 and 15 October 2009. A final evidence session with the Housing Rights Service was held on 5 November 2009. The Minutes of Evidence are included at Appendix 2.

10. The Committee began its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 22 October 2009 and concluded this on 19 November 2009 – see Appendix 2.

Extension of Committee Stage of the Bill

11. On 5 October 2009, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill to 1 December 2009.

Report on the Housing (Amendment) Bill

12. At its meeting on 19 November 2009, the Committee agreed its report on the Bill and agreed that it should be printed.

Consideration of the Bill

13 On 18 September 2008, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Committee took evidence from Department officials on the purpose and background to the main provisions of the proposed Bill. At the same meeting, the Committee also took evidence from Housing Rights Service relating to certain provisions within the Bill- see Appendix 2.

14 Once the Bill was drafted, the Committee took further evidence from the Department on 2 April 2009. The Departmental officials provided more details on the main provisions and outlined a number of amendments that had been adopted as a result of the discussions with the Committee- see Appendix 2.

Evidence from Housing Rights Service

15 On the 17 September 2009 and again on 5 November 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Housing Rights Service (HRS) – see Appendix 2. HRS highlighted a number of concerns in relation to the Bill including:

• Homelessness Strategy

HRS called for a change in the wording to ensure that the statutory requirement for the NI Housing Executive to produce a strategy is strengthened;

• Duty to provide advice

HRS argued that the duty to provide advice should be more prescriptive and should refer to the type of guidance to be provided;

• Review of decisions

HRS recommended that temporary accommodation for those awaiting homelessness decisions should be provided;

• Anti-social behaviour

HRS welcomed the publication of anti-social policies and procedures by the Housing Executive but felt that this requirement should be extended to include Housing Associations; and

• Houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)

HRS was of the view that the amended definition and the related clause should be removed in its entirety from the Bill and be subject to a full consultation with key stakeholders.

Evidence from Simon Community NI

16. On the 17 September 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Simon Community NI – see Appendix 2. The Simon Community welcomed the statutory requirement on the Housing Executive to publish a Homelessness Strategy but highlighted a number of practical concerns including:

• Homelessness Strategy

The Simon Community argued that the proposal to develop a five year strategy was unrealistic and recommended it should be for no more than three years, with the possibility of an annual review;

• Co-operation of other statutory organisations

The Simon Community felt that the Bill should be amended to strengthen the requirement for organisations to co-operate with the implementation of the Homelessness Strategy;

• Anti-social behaviour

The Simon Community welcomed the publication by the Housing Executive of policies and procedures relating to anti-social behaviour. The Simon Community argued that there should be further analysis of the Housing Executive’s role in respect of anti-social behaviour;

• Community Housing Companies

The Simon Community argued that Community Housing Companies could be developed from existing structures within the Housing Executive and that they would present a cost effective solution for managing social housing and anti-social behaviour;

• Regulation of the private rented sector

The Simon Community suggested that the Bill be amended to include provisions relating to the regulation of the private rented sector so as enhance the availability of alternative affordable housing options.

Evidence from Council for the Homeless NI (CHNI)

17. On the 17 September 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Council for the Homeless NI (CHNI) – see Appendix 2. The Council for the Homeless responded to the Bill on behalf of its member organisations. CHNI highlighted a number of areas in the Bill for which amendments were recommended:

• Homelessness Strategy

CHNI indicated that the Homelessness Strategy should be reviewed every three years and stressed the need for other Departments to share the responsibility for combating homelessness;

• Statutory consultees

CHNI argued that the Promoting Social Inclusion Steering Group and relevant voluntary organisations should be statutory consultees to the development of the Homelessness Strategy;

• Eligibility for housing assistance

CHNI believed that the Bill should be amended to require homelessness support to be provided to those in danger of destitution;

• Provision of Advice.

CHNI called for the inclusion in the Bill of a requirement to develop a good practice guide for the provision of homelessness advice for all social landlords and advice providers; and

• Review of decisions:

CHNI expressed concern about the discretionary provision of accommodation for those appealing homelessness decisions. CHNI suggested amendments that would ensure consistency of treatment in respect of the provision of accommodation for those appealing decisions.

Evidence from the NI Human Rights Commission (NIRHC)

18. On the 24 September 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the NI Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) - see Appendix 2. NIHRC drew on its recent investigation of the issues facing homeless non-UK nationals in Northern Ireland to suggest additions aimed at strengthening human rights protection within the Bill.

• Homelessness Strategy

NIHRC recommended that the Homelessness Strategy should refer to all those at risk of homelessness or assessed as homeless in Northern Ireland regardless of their immigration status;

• Provision of advice

NIHRC recommended that the advice provided by the Housing Executive or bodies acting on their behalf should be subject to appropriate consultation and review and advocated setting out a minimum standard for advice and assistance that the Housing Executive must provide;

• Review of decisions

NIHRC stressed the need for improved access to advice, written notification of decisions and sources of support for non-UK nationals;

• Intentionality.

NIHRC recommended an amendment to the Bill which would remove the requirement to determine intentionality when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for homelessness support;

• Accommodation fund for non-UK nationals

NIHRC called for the development of a statutory fund to be accessed by relevant voluntary organisations that currently provide emergency help for homeless non-UK nationals;

• Inter-agency co-operation.

NIHRC recommended the development, agreement and effective dissemination of reliable inter-agency protocols accompanied by an inter-agency guide for staff outlining the options for assistance and referrals for homeless non-UK nationals; and

• Emergency accommodation.

NIHRC felt that the Bill should include provisions which would provide access to appropriate emergency accommodation so as to avoid destitution for non-UK nationals.

Evidence from the NI Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

19. On the 24 September 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) - see Appendix 2. NIACRO welcomed the homelessness strategy and the duty on the Housing Executive to provide information, however it suggested a number of amendments in relation to the Bill including:

• Co-operation with other statutory organisations

NIACRO recommended the inclusion of the Prison Service as one of the bodies who should be required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account when undertaking their functions. NIACRO also felt that Government Departments should publish how they plan to implement and report on progress against the Strategy’s objectives;

• Inter-agency co-operation

NIACRO advocated provisions which would require the Housing Executive to put in place connecting services for ex-offenders and for the Homelessness Strategy to set out clear lines of responsibility for the provision of suitable accommodation for women, people aged 16 to 17 and those suffering mental illness, who are involved in the Criminal Justice System;

• Review of decisions

NIACRO argued that the timescales for appeal relating to homelessness decisions should be increased to bring them in-line with social security practice;

• Intentionality

NIACRO recommended an amendment to the Bill which would prevent an ex-offender being viewed as intentionally homeless as a consequence of having a conviction;

• Treatment of Spent Convictions

NIACRO felt that amendments to the Bill were required to ensure consistency of approach in respect of the treatment by the Housing Executive of spent convictions when assessing eligibility for homelessness support; and

• Rent guarantee schemes.

NIACRO were of the view that the Homelessness Strategy should include a commitment to support rent deposit or rent guarantee schemes so as to allow access to the private rented sector by ex-offenders who may be excluded from the social housing sector.

Evidence from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

20. On the 24 September 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland - see Appendix 2. The Equality Commission welcomed the opportunity to comment on a number of areas of the Bill, including:

• Co-operation with other statutory organisations

The Equality Commission called for a statutory requirement for the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being, the Regional Health and Social Care Board, all local councils and all Government Departments to take account of the homelessness strategy;

• Suitable accommodation for Travellers

The Equality Commission felt there should be a requirement for the housing authorities to provide culturally sensitive accommodation for Travellers who are presenting as homeless. The Equality Commission also felt that the Strategy should explicitly address homelessness in the Traveller community; and

• Anti-social behaviour

The Equality Commission called on the Department to consult and prepare a statutory code of practice for polices relating to anti-social behaviour for all social landlords so as to ensure a consistent approach.

Evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing (NI)

21. On the 1 October 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) - see Appendix 2. CIH welcomed the introduction of the Housing (Amendment) Bill, suggesting that the majority of the provisions in the Bill will make a positive contribution to social housing in Northern Ireland. CIH raised a number of issues in relation to the Bill, including:

• Homelessness Strategy.

CIH stressed the need for the Homelessness Strategy to be well- resourced; to be produced in line with best practice and to include appropriate checks and balances to ensure that listed organisations are fulfilling their responsibilities. In particular CIH stressed the need for health and social services and housing associations to be included as key partners in the Strategy;

• Provision of advice

CIH felt strongly that that the current provisions for advice and information should be expanded and that there should be a single source of independent housing advice on all housing options to meet the longer term aspirations of tenants and home owners;

• Extending Priority Need

CIH stressed the urgent need to designate 16 and 17 year olds as a priority need group;

• Phasing out Priority Need

CIH urged the Committee to consider the work in other jurisdictions in phasing out priority need over time;

• Housing Associations

CIH expressed disappointment that the Bill has not been used to streamline the process for the regulation of housing associations; and

• Anti-social behaviour

CIH welcomed the provisions relating to the publication of policies and procedures by the Housing Executive but felt that forthcoming reviews should provide resources to help local communities develop strategies to successfully tackle anti-social behaviour.

Evidence from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

22. On the 1 October 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) - see Appendix 2. NIFHA identified a number of concerns relating to registered housing associations including:

• Regulation of Housing Associations

NIFHA indicated that it is not opposed to the introduction of additional powers in the Bill relating to enhanced regulation of Housing Associations but expressed the view that these should only be used in extreme and serious cases.

• Code of Conduct.

NIFHA called for the existing legislation governing conflicts of interest to be replaced by a Code of Conduct for Housing Association board members and employees; and

• Homelessness Assessment.

In light of the Varney recommendations, NIFHA suggested the introduction of an additional clause to permit the Housing Executive to delegate assessment of homelessness to another body.

Evidence from Supporting Communities (NI)

23. On the 1 October 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from Supporting Communities (Northern Ireland) –see Appendix 2. Supporting Communities welcomed the publication of the Bill but raised a number of issues aimed at strengthening the existing legislation, including:

• Homelessness Strategy

Supporting Communities recommended that voluntary and community sector organisations should be consulted in the formulation of the Homelessness Strategy.

• Consistency of advice provision and decision-making

Supporting Communities called upon the Department to produce a code of guidance in order to ensure consistency of advice provision and decision-making;

• Regulation of Housing Associations

Supporting Communities advocated setting out guidance on circumstances that would warrant departmental intervention in Housing Associations;

• Introductory Tenancies

Supporting Communities felt that introductory tenants should have the same rights as secure tenants.

• NIHE Board

Supporting Communities argued strongly for the provision of tenant representation on the Housing Executive’s board.

Evidence from the Northern Ireland Housing Council

24. On the 1 October 2009, the Committee took oral evidence from the Northern Ireland Housing Council –see Appendix 2. The Housing Council expressed concerns about the provision relating to representation on the NIHE Board. The Housing Council were concerned that the number of Housing Council representatives on the Board was restricted to four and recommended that the wording be changed so as to allow the Minister the discretion to increase Housing Council representation beyond this number.

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

25. The Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill on 22 October and 5, 12 and 19 November 2009.

Related departmental submissions are included at Appendix 4.

Clause 1 – Homelessness Strategy

26. Witnesses suggested that the wording of the Bill be altered to emphasise that the requirement for the Housing Executive to produce a Homelessness Strategy is a duty and not simply a power. To that end, it was proposed that the word “may" in Article 6A (1) be replaced by “shall". The Committee agreed that it would seek clarification at Consideration Stage as to the efficacy of the current wording of the clause and the impact of the proposed amendment. The Committee further agreed that if it was not satisfied with the explanation given at Consideration Stage that it would consider the introduction of an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

27. The Committee noted proposals that the clause be amended to require an increase in the frequency of the renewal of the Homelessness Strategy and the inclusion of an explicit requirement to review inter-agency protocols. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department that the Strategy and related protocols will be subject to an appropriately detailed annual review.

28. The Committee considered proposals in relation to additions to the list of organisations required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account in the exercise of their functions. The Committee accepted the Departmental explanation that the inclusion of a reference in Article 6A(5) to the Secretary of State (in relation to any function exercisable in connection with prisons in Northern Ireland) would ensure that the Prison Service of Northern Ireland would be required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account. The Committee also accepted a Departmental amendment to include the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to the list of organisations given at Article 6A(5).

The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Clause 1, Page 2, Line 9

At end insert-

‘() the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’

29. The Committee agreed that as district councils have an increasingly important role to play in combating homelessness that they too should be required to take account of the Homelessness Strategy. At the request of the Committee, the Department agreed to amend Clause 1 to reflect the inclusion of the district councils in the list of organisations required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Clause 1, Page 2, Line 4

At end insert-

‘() district councils’

30. The Committee considered measures to require organisations to set out actions and outcomes relating to the Homelessness Strategy in their annual plans and reports. The Committee accepted the Department’s assurance that it would amend the Housing Executive Management Statement to require it to report annually on its progress and that of related organisations in respect of the Homelessness Strategy.

31. The Committee considered proposals that the Housing Executive be required to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment or other specified form of consultation with statutory consultees when renewing the Homelessness Strategy. The Committee agreed that as the wording of the Bill required the Housing Executive to consult upon the Homelessness Strategy there was consequently no requirement to identify statutory consultees or specify the form of consultations.

32. The Committee considered evidence relating to the extension of the provision of homelessness accommodation to migrants regardless of their immigration status. The Committee voiced concerns in respect of the absence of support for so-called ineligible applicants. The Committee accepted the Department’s argument that the Bill could not be amended in relation to the provision of support for ineligible homeless migrants – even for an emergency accommodation and destitution fund – as this would be contrary to existing immigration legislation and would be beyond the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

33. The Committee expressed concern in relation to the provision of homelessness support for women, 16-17 year olds and the mentally ill who are involved with the Criminal Justice System. The Committee reviewed progress achieved in the development of programmes and improved inter-agency protocols as part of its consideration of the Including the Homeless Strategy. Consequently, the Committee did not bring forward amendments related to this issue.

34. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department in respect of its policies to combat homelessness among Travellers and therefore did not support amendments to the Bill in this regard.

35. The Committee considered information from the Department in relation to inter-agency protocols and its policies in respect of: the provision of accommodation to families who become homeless as a result of suffering intimidation; rent guarantee schemes and the provision of furnished social housing for destitute applicants. The Committee agreed that existing legislative provisions in respect of the above are adequate and that therefore it would not be appropriate to bring forward amendments on these issues.

36. The Committee agreed that it would not support an amendment to extend priority need status to all 16-17 years olds, as a statutory rule relating to this matter was understood to be awaiting Executive approval.

37. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 1 as amended.

Clause 2 – Duty of Executive to provide advice

38. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department in respect of the use of Plain English standards; alternative formats; the publication of translation services and the use of non-UK languages in respect of its homelessness advice and decision-making literature. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments in relation to this issue.

39. The Committee supported the view that the homelessness advice to be provided by the Housing Executive or other advice providers should be prescribed so as to include, for example, homelessness prevention information. At the request of the Committee, the Department agreed to amend Clause 2 to require the Housing Executive to take account of guidance issued by the Department in this regard. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Clause 2, Page 4, Line 4

At end insert-

‘(4) In relation to the form and content of advice under paragraph (1) the Executive shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Department.’

40. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 2 as amended.

Clause 3 – Eligibility for housing assistance

41. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department that guidance had been issued to the Housing Executive which would ensure the consistent treatment of applicants with spent convictions and thus prevent their general exclusion from homelessness support services. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments in relation to this issue.

42. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 3 as drafted.

Clause 4 – Power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

43. The Committee considered the addition to the Bill of a detailed specification for the homelessness advice which is to be provided by the Housing Executive including: a minimum standard of advice; a requirement to match advice to applicant need; a requirement to refer applicants to social services and a requirement for the Housing Executive to ensure adequate training for its staff in homelessness and racial discrimination issues. The Committee accepted the Department’s undertaking that it would submit a minimum standards document addressing these issues, for Committee approval following the passage of the Bill.

44. The Committee therefore agreed that it was content with Clause 4 as drafted.

Clause 5 – Review of decisions in relation to homelessness

45. The Committee raised questions regarding procedures relating to appeals to the Housing Executive relating to homelessness decisions. The Committee was particularly concerned to ensure that appellants were made aware of their rights including the right of representation and that officers involved in decisions would be excluded from the review of appeals. The Committee accepted assurances from the Department that the procedures for appeals would be compliant with relevant Human Rights legislation and would also be included in a minimum standards document which would be submitted to the Committee for its approval following the passage of the Bill. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments in relation to this issue.

46. The Committee were concerned in respect of reported inconsistency in the provision of temporary accommodation to appellants during appeals relating to homelessness decisions. The Committee accepted an assurance from the Department that it would improve communication with appellants of the procedures relating to temporary accommodation. The Committee therefore accepted that an amendment in relation to this issue was unnecessary.

47. The Committee agreed that an amendment was required in respect of the timescale for lodging appeals in relation to homelessness decisions. The Committee agreed that this timescale should be increased to 28 days to bring it into line with the usual practice for social security appeals. At the request of the Committee, the Department agreed to amend Clause 5 to reflect the increased timescale for requesting an appeal. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendments as proposed by the Department:

Clause 5, Page 5 Line 14

Leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘28’

Clause 5, Page 6, line 19

Leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘28’

48. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 5 as amended.

Clause 6 – Power to obtain information from registered housing associations

49. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 6 as drafted.

Clause 7 – Restriction on inquiry into affairs of registered housing associations by persons associated with the Executive

50. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 7 as drafted.

Clause 8 – Department’s powers in cases of misconduct or mismanagement of registered housing associations

51. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 8 as drafted.

Clause 9 – Abandonment of introductory tenancies

52. At the Committee’s request, the Department agreed to bring forward an amendment which would exempt Clause 9 from the provisions of Article 148(3) (b) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The effect of the amendment will be to require Assembly Procedure to be applied to the prescription of the form of a landlord’s notice to a tenant where an introductory tenancy appears to have been abandoned. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Clause 9, Page 13, Line 20

At end insert-

‘(5) In Article 148(3) (b) of the Order of 2003 after the word “regulations" insert “(other than regulations under Article 19A (3))".’

53. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 9 as amended.

Clause 10 – Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policies and procedures

54. The Committee considered amendments which would require all social landlords to publish their anti-social behaviour policies and procedures. The Committee accepted the Department’s advice that the Bill should not place statutory duties on registered housing associations as these are not statutory bodies. The Committee did not bring forward amendments in this regard following undertakings from the Department that the Housing Association Guide would be amended to require Housing Associations to publish their anti-social behaviour policies and practices. The Committee also accepted undertakings from the Department that it would, through the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations, seek to bring the procedures of the Housing Executive and Housing Associations relating to tenancy and anti-social behaviour matters into alignment.

55. The Committee also expressed considerable concerns with regard to: the ability of communities to combat anti-social behaviour; current practices in respect of the transfer of anti-social tenants from Housing Association to Housing Executive tenancies and the apparent absence of a duty of care in respect of existing residents when the transfer of anti-social tenants is undertaken. The Committee accepted undertakings from the Department that these issues will be considered and consulted upon during the progress of the next housing bill which is expected in 2010.

56. The Committee also welcomed undertakings from the Department: that guidance will be issued to all social landlords that the solution to anti-social behaviour issues should not simply be the transfer of anti-social tenants to another area; that efforts will be made to amend the Common Housing Selection Scheme to give social landlords the authority to refuse transfers to tenants who have been sanctioned for anti-social behaviour; that legislative proposals will be brought forward that would enable social landlords to withhold consent to an exchange of tenancies where an assignee’s household is subject to an anti-social behaviour sanction and that legislative proposals will be devised which would allow social landlords to share information on the anti-social behaviour sanctions of tenants.

57. The Committee agreed that the issues referred to above may be further explored at Consideration Stage.

58. In light of the assurances received from the Department, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 10 as drafted.

Clause 11 – Grounds for possession: nuisance or annoyance to neighbours

59. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 11 as drafted.

Clause 12 – Increase in Housing Council representation on Housing Executive Board

60. The Committee considered amendments which would require representation on the Board of the Housing Executive by a tenancy advocate or an increased Housing Council representation (over and above the 4 members currently proposed in the Bill). The Committee noted the Minister’s efforts to improve the democratic accountability of the Housing Executive Board. The Committee noted the Department’s explanation that the selection of Housing Executive Board members has been, and will be, subject to a rigorous public appointments’ process. The Committee accepted the Department’s undertaking that, within the restrictions of the public appointments’ process, the Department would seek to encourage applications to this important body from individuals involved in tenancy advocacy.

61. In the light of the assurances provided by the Department, the Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 12 as drafted.

Clause 13 – Amendment of Article 13(6) of the Order of 1992

62. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 13 as drafted.

Clause 14 – Definition of a “house in multiple occupation"

63. The Bill as drafted would exclude homes with 2 cohabiting families from the definition of a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The Committee was concerned that this would lead to an unwarranted reduction in the regulation of HMOs. The Committee accepted that the widening of the definition of family would have a limited impact on genuine HMOs.

64. At the request of the Committee, the Department agreed to amend Clause 14 to restrict the change in the definition of a HMO to a widening of the definition of family. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

Clause 14, Page 14, Line 27

Leave out from beginning to ‘Article’ in Line 29 and insert at the end ‘and for that purpose’.

Clause 15 – Amendment of Article 35(5) of the Order of 2006

65. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 15 as drafted.

Clause 16 – Refusal by district council to issue certificate of fitness for human habitation

66. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 – Interpretation

67. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 17 as drafted.

Clause 18 – Commencement

68. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 18 as drafted.

Clause 19 – Short title

69. The Committee agreed that it was content with Clause 19 as drafted.

Delegated Powers

70. The Committee considered the Delegated Powers associated with the Bill.

71. At the Committee’s request, the Department brought forward further amendments to add Assembly Procedure to regulation-making powers relating to the review of registered rents. The Committee agreed to the text of the amendment as proposed by the Department:

New Clause

After Clause 16 insert-

‘Amendment to Article 55 of the Order of 2006 16A. In Article 55 of the Order of 2006 (review of registered rents) at the end add-

“(8) An order under paragraph (5) shall be subject to negative resolution.".’

72. The Committee agreed that it was content with the Delegated Powers as amended which are associated with the Bill.

Additional Clauses

73. The Committee considered amendments relating to the removal of the requirement for the Housing Executive to consider intentionality when assessing homelessness. The Committee accepted Departmental assurances that such an amendment would represent a significant policy change in respect of the provision of homelessness support and would lead to gross distortions of the housing waiting list. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments or add clauses in this regard.

74. The Committee was concerned to learn of procurement difficulties experienced by Registered Housing Associations as a consequence of the control on conflicts of interests for employees of these organisations. The Committee considered Departmental clarification on the interpretation of the related legislation. The Committee accepted the Departmental assurance that further procurement difficulties would be limited and agreed that no amendment or additional clause would be necessary in respect of the development of a code of conduct for employees of Registered Housing Associations.

75. The Committee considered calls for a review of the regulation of Registered Housing Associations. The Committee was concerned that regulation may be unnecessarily onerous. The Committee accepted the Department’s assurance that the Housing Association Guide is to be reviewed and amended and that so-called light-touch regulation will be brought into effect as audit compliance improves. The Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments or additional clauses in this regard at this time.

76. The Committee expressed considerable concerns with regard to the operation of the Common Housing Selection Scheme. Some Members expressed the view that the Scheme should be revised so as to enhance access to housing for applicants living in hostels and applicants suffering from severe mental or physical illness. The Committee noted information from the Department in relation to reviews of the Scheme and planned consideration of changes in respect of waiting times and the allocation of sharing points. The Committee accepted undertakings from the Department that further modernisation of the Scheme was to be considered. On the understanding that the issues raised by Committee Members would form part of a review of the Scheme, the Committee therefore agreed that it would not bring forward amendments or additional clauses in relation to this issue.

77. The Committee considered the mandatory registration of private landlords as a means of improving the quality of private tenancies and enhancing access to this sector by the homeless. The Committee reviewed the Department’s timetable for the introduction of related primary legislation. The Committee agreed that although some Members strongly felt that legislation was urgently required, amendments or additional clauses would not be brought forward. The Committee agreed, in the first instance, to reconsider this issue during the Committee Stage of the next housing bill which it is understood will address the registration of private landlords.

Agreement that Report be printed

78. At its meeting of 19 November 2009, the Committee agreed that this Report be the Second Report of the Committee for Social Development for 2009-10 to the Assembly.

79. The Committee ordered the Report to be printed on 19 November 2009.

Minutes of Proceedings

Thursday, 18 September 2008
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Ms Marie Austin (Assembly Clerk)
Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Clairita Frazer (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Lorraine McFarland (Clerical Officer)

6. Proposed Housing Bill.

Michael Sands, Stephen Martin and Allison Kingsmill joined the meeting at 11.45am.

Departmental officials briefed the Committee on the proposed Housing Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

The officials left the meeting at 12.15pm.

Janet Hunter and Nicola McCrudden, Housing Rights Service joined the meeting at 12.15pm.

Representatives of the Housing Rights Service briefed the Committee on the proposed Housing Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for their briefing.

Mr Maginness left the meeting at 12.15pm.

Mr Maginness rejoined the meeting at 12.30pm.

The representatives left the meeting at 12.41pm.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would write to the Minister highlighting its concerns in relation to the proposed legislation and that the Department should provide the Committee with further information in tabular format

Thursday, 2 April 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA

7. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Departmental briefing

The following Departmental officials joined the meeting at 12.30pm:

Michael Sands – Deputy Director, Housing Division, Department for Social Security;

Stephen Martin – Housing Division, Department for Social Development; and

Avril Hiles – Housing Division, Department for Social Development.

The officials briefed the Committee on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for the briefing.

The officials left the meeting at 12.49pm

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek Departmental clarification in respect of the aspects of the Bill referring to the eviction of a tenant following anti-social behaviour undertaken by others living in the tenancy.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward additional questions to the Department that were not addressed during the briefing.

Agreed: The Committee directed the Clerk to seek advice in relation to the protocol surrounding the release of the final version of the Bill prior to introduction at the Assembly. Subject to this advice, the Committee agreed that information relating to the content of the Bill should be released to relevant organisations.

Thursday, 23 April 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Hilditch MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Lorraine McFarland (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assembly Research & Library Services)
(Item 8)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)

10. Housing (Amendment) Bill

10.1 The Committee noted Departmental correspondence relating to the Housing (Amendment) Bill .

10.2 Housing (Amendment) Bill – briefing by Housing Rights Service and Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

Session One:

The following representatives of the Housing Rights Service joined the meeting at 12.26pm:

Janet Hunter – Director, Housing Rights Service; and Nicola McCrudden – Policy & Communications Manager, Housing Rights Service

The representatives briefed the Committee on the draft Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for their briefing.

The representatives left the meeting at 12.40pm

Session Two:

The following representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations joined the meeting at 12.43pm:

Chris Williamson – Chief Executive, Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations; and Frank Dunne – Chairman, Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

The representatives briefed the Committee on the draft Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for their briefing.

The representative left the meeting at 01.14pm.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department, seeking clarification in respect of the use of local contractors by Housing Associations for design and build contracts.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to commission research on the issue of reserves held by Housing Associations.

Thursday, 21 May 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Mickey Brady MLA~
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Miss Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assembly Research & Library Services)
(Item 6)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)

9. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland briefing

Agreed: The Committee agreed to move into closed session.

The meeting moved into closed session at 11.25am

The following representatives of the Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland joined the meeting at 11.25am:

Marnette Lyons;
Declan Boyle;
Dairmid Laird; and
Joe Nugent.

The representatives briefed the Committee on aspects of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the briefing.

The representatives left the meeting at 12.01pm

Thursday, 25 June 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr David Hilditch MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Alban Maginness MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr John Devlin (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Miss Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Assembly Research & Library Services)
(Item 10)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA
Mr David Simpson MLA (Chairperson)

The meeting began in public session at 11.03 am.

4.1 Housing (Amendment) Bill- Public Consultation

The Clerk briefed the Committee on the public consultation process which will be undertaken as part of the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed the public notice to be placed in the main daily newspapers.

Agreed: It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the proposed list of potential consultees inviting written submissions on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: It was agreed that the Clerk should write to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to invite them to give an oral briefing to the Committee on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Thursday, 10 September 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Miss Michelle McIlveen MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)

Apologies: Mr Fra McCann MLA

The meeting began in public session at 11.05am.

10. Housing (Amendment) Bill

The Clerk briefed the Committee on an Assembly Research and Library Services’ paper and stakeholder submissions received in connection with the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Burns left the meeting at 12:53pm

Agreed: The Committee agreed to seek an extension of the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill until 1 December 2009.

Thursday, 17 September 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)

The meeting began in public session at 10.31am.

4.2 Housing (Amendment) Bill submissions.

The Committee noted two further submissions received in relation to the Housing (Amendment) Bill from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister and Belfast City Council.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to accept these two additional submissions.

5. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from Housing Rights Service.

The following representatives from Housing Rights Service joined the meeting at 10:36am:

Janet Hunter – Director, Housing Rights Service; and

Nicola McCrudden – Policy and Communications Manager, Housing Rights Service.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 11:10am.

7. Housing (Amendment) Bill- Evidence from Simon Community (NI)

The following representatives from the Simon Community Northern Ireland joined the meeting at 11:13am:

Paddy McGettigan – Director of Housing and Support Services, Simon Community Northern Ireland; and

Ciara O’Hagan– Director of Finance and Facilities, Simon Community Northern Ireland; and

Alyson Kilpatrick- Board Member, Simon Community Northern Ireland.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 11:50am.

Ms Lo left the meeting at 11:50am.

Mrs Bradley left the meeting at 11:50am.

9. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from the Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland.

The following representatives joined the meeting at 11:58am:

Ricky Rowledge –Director, Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland; and Tony McQuillan– Vice-Chairperson, Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr Easton rejoined the meeting at 12:04pm.

Mr Armstrong left the meeting at 12:15pm.

Mr Hilditch left the meeting at 12:20pm.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 12:26pm

The meeting moved into closed session at 12:35pm.

Ms Ní Chuilín left the meeting at 12:35pm.

13. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Briefing from the Assembly Bill Office

A representative from the Assembly Bill Office briefed the Committee in relation to the Housing (Amendment) Bill and the use of the Accelerated Passage procedure.

The Chairperson thanked the representative from the Assembly Bill Office for the briefing.

Mr Armstrong rejoined the meeting at 12:37pm.

The briefing finished at 12:53pm.

Thursday 24 September 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10.42 am.

4. Matters arising

4.1 Housing (Amendment) Bill submission.

The Committee noted correspondence from the Landlords Association of Northern Ireland in relation to the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

5. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

The following representatives from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission joined the meeting at 10:45am:

Peter O’Neill - Chief Executive, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

Sorcha McKenna - Investigations Worker, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; and

Roisin Devlin - Investigations Worker, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 11:10am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek further information on the issues raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

7. Housing (Amendment) Bill- Evidence from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO).

The following representatives from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) joined the meeting at 11:17am:

Pat Conway - Director of Services, NIACRO;

Síle McLean - Services Manager, Assisting People and Communities Programme, NIACRO; and

Barry McMullen - Senior Practitioner, NIACRO.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 11:46am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek further information on the issues raised by NIACRO.

9. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

The following representatives joined the meeting at 11:55am:

Evelyn Collins - Chief Executive, Equality Commission; and

Patrice Hardy - Director of Policy, Equality Commission.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr David Hilditch left the meeting at 12:18pm

Mr Alex Easton left the meeting at 12:18pm

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 12:20pm.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek information on the issues raised by the Equality Commission.

Thursday 1 October 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10.30 am.

4.2 Housing (Amendment) Bill submission

Agreed: The Committee agreed to note the correspondence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Department in relation to the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Billy Armstrong joined the meeting at 10:39.

5. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from the Chartered Institute of Housing (Northern Ireland)

The following representative from the Chartered Institute of Housing (Northern Ireland) joined the meeting at 10:39am:

Grainia Long Director, Chartered Institute of Housing NI.

The representative gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representative for the oral evidence.

The representative left the meeting at 11:02am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek further information on the issues raised by the Chartered Institute of Housing (NI).

7. Housing (Amendment) Bill- Evidence from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA).

The following representatives from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations joined the meeting at 11:05am:

Ray Cashell Chairman, NIFHA;
Chris Williamson Chief Executive, NIFHA; and
Arthur Canning NIFHA Council Member.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 11:38am.

Mr Alex Easton left the meeting at 11:38am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek further information on the issues raised by NIFHA.

9. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from Supporting Communities Northern Ireland.

The following representatives joined the meeting at 11:50am:

Murray Watt Liaison Officer, Supporting Communities; and
Colm McDaid Area Manager, Supporting Communities NI.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr David Hilditch left the meeting at 12:07pm

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

The representatives left the meeting at 12:08pm.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek information on the issues raised by Supporting Communities Northern Ireland.

11. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Evidence Session from the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

The following representatives joined the meeting at 12:10pm:

Gerry Gallagher Chairman, Northern Ireland Housing Council;
Jim Brown Vice-Chairman, Northern Ireland Housing Council; and
Eamonn O’Neill Member of the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

The representatives gave oral evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr David Hilditch rejoined the meeting at 12:21pm.

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for the oral evidence.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek information on the issues raised by the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:33pm.

The meeting resumed in private session at 12:44pm.

Thursday 8 October 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Mrs Sheila Mawhinney (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10.34 am.

Housing (Amendment) Bill evidence session – Departmental Briefing on the Including the Homeless Strategy

The following officials from the Department joined the meeting at 10:40am:

Brian Doherty Deputy Director of Housing, DSD;
Eilish O’Neill Senior Manager, Social Inclusion & Support for People, DSD; and
Stephen Martin Housing Bill Team, DSD.

The officials gave oral evidence on the Including the Homeless Strategy. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr Billy Armstrong joined the meeting at 11:07am.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

The officials left the meeting at 11:12am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to request information on homelessness levels in areas which were formally ring-fenced under the Housing Executive’s Strategic Guidelines and an update on Discretionary Housing Payment expenditure.

6. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Consideration of Amendments

The Committee considered possible amendments to the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek further clarification from the Department in respect of the issues raised by Members in relation to the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Thursday 15 October 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Research and Library Services) (Item 6)

Apologies: Mr Mickey Brady
Ms Anna Lo MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10:34am.

4.2 Housing (Amendment) Bill

Agreed: The Committee agreed to note a copy of the Equality Commission’s report entitled: Outlining Minimum Standards for Traveller Accommodation.

5. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Departmental Briefing

The following officials from the Department joined the meeting at 10:40am:

Michael Sands Deputy Director of Housing, DSD;
Stephen Martin Housing Bill Team, DSD; and
Stephen Baird Housing Bill Team, DSD.

The officials provided a briefing in response to the Committee’s queries on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr Alex Easton joined the meeting at 11:15am.

Mr Alex Easton left the meeting at 11:24am.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their briefing.

The officials left the meeting at 11:53am.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward the Delegated Powers Memorandum referring to the Housing (Amendment) Bill to the Examiner of Statutory Rules for consideration.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should undertake research on the current and possible post-RPA role of Councils in relation to homelessness issues.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Chairperson would write to the Minister seeking clarification on the Minister’s plans to enhance the democratic accountability of the Housing Executive through increased elected representation or the inclusion of a tenancy advocate on the Housing Executive Board.

Thursday 22 October 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Research and Library Services) (Item 9)
Mr Denis Arnold (Bill Clerk) (Item 7)

Apologies: None

The meeting began in public session at 10:32am.

6. Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill – Clause-by-clause scrutiny

The Committee commenced its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The following officials from the Department joined the meeting at 11:17am to respond to Members’ queries during the scrutiny process:

Michael Sands Deputy Director of Housing, DSD;
Stephen Martin Housing Bill Team, DSD; and
Stephen Baird Housing Bill Team, DSD.

Mr Jonathan Craig joined the meeting at 11:19am

Clause 1 – Homelessness Strategy

Agreed: The Committee agreed, subject to a review of the final wording, that it would accept an amendment to Clause 1 Article 6A(1) to highlight the duty to produce a Homelessness Strategy though the replacement of the word “may" by “shall".

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín left the meeting at 11:25am

Ms Anna Lo joined the meeting at 11:28am

Agreed: The Committee agreed, subject to a review of the final wording, that Clause 1 Article 6A(5) be amended to include the Prison Service in the list of organisations that are required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that although it was generally content with Clause 1 as amended, it would defer further consideration of the clause in respect of the inclusion of the local councils in the list of organisations required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account.

Clause 2 – Duty of Executive to provide advice

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín re-joined the meeting at 11:35am

Mr David Hilditch left the meeting at 11:38am

Agreed: The Committee agreed that although it was generally content with Clause 2, further consideration would be deferred pending additional evidence from the Housing Rights Service in relation to the provision of homelessness prevention advice.

Clause 3

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 3 put and agreed to".

Clause 4 – Power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

Mr Thomas Burns left the meeting at 11:43am

Agreed: The Committee agreed that although it was generally content with Clause 4, further consideration would be deferred pending additional evidence from the Housing Rights Service in relation to the provision of homelessness prevention advice.

Clause 5 – Review of decisions in relation to homelessness

Agreed: The Committee agreed that although it was generally content with Clause 5, it would accept (subject to a review of the final wording) an amendment relating to an increase from 21 to 28 days for the period during which a request may be made for a review of a Housing Executive decision.

Clauses 6 to 9

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clauses 6 to 9 put and agreed to".

Clause 10 – Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policies and procedures

Mr David Hilditch rejoined the meeting at 11:47am

Mr Billy Armstrong left the meeting at 11:58am

Mr Thomas Burns re-joined the meeting at 12:04pm

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department to seek clarity on the Housing Executive’s policy and practice in respect of anti-social behaviour.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed that the Bill Report and the Chairperson’s remarks at Consideration Stage would reflect the Committee’s expectation that issues relating to anti-social behaviour would be adequately dealt with, in-line with the Committee’s suggestions, in the next housing bill.

Agreed: The Committee also agreed that the Bill Report and the Chairperson’s remarks at Consideration Stage would reflect the Committee’s expectation that issues relating to inconsistency in respect of the Housing Executive’s and Housing Associations’ procedures and policies would be addressed in the current revision of the Housing Association Guide.

Agreed: “that the Committee is content with Clause 10 put and agreed to."

Clause 11

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 11 put and agreed to".

Clause 12 – Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive

Agreed: The Committee agreed that further consideration of Clause 12 would be deferred pending additional evidence from the Department in relation to the enhanced democratisation of the Housing Executive.

Clause 13

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 13 put and agreed to".

Clause 14 – Definition of “house in multiple occupation"

Agreed: The Committee agreed that, subject to a review of the final wording, it would accept an amendment which would limit the change in the definition of a house in multiple occupation to a widening of the definition of a family to include uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces.

Clauses 15 to 19

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clauses 15 to 19 put and agreed to".

Additional Amendments

Mrs Mary Bradley left the meeting at 12:22pm

Mr Alex Easton left the meeting at 12:22pm

Mr Billy Armstrong re-joined the meeting at 12:22pm

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer consideration of an amendment to introduce a code of practice relating to conflicts on interest for Housing Association staff, pending further information from the Department.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should write to the Department requesting information on the timing, trigger and nature of reviews of the Common Housing Selection Scheme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer further consideration of amendments relating to the reform of the Common Housing Selection Scheme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to consider an amendment which would add Assembly Procedure to the review of Registered Rents.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer further consideration of amendments relating to the registration of private landlords.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their attendance.

The officials left the meeting at 12:28pm

The meeting was adjourned at 12:29pm

Mr Thomas Burns left the meeting at 12:47pm

Mr Jonathan Craig left the meeting at 12:47pm

The meeting resumed at 12:47pm

Thursday 5 November 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Ms Eleanor Murphy (Research and Library Services) (Items 5&9)
Mr Denis Arnold (Bill Clerk) (Item 5)

The meeting began in public session at 10:32am.

5. Housing (Amendment) Bill.

5.1 Briefing by Housing Rights Service

The following representatives from Housing Rights Service joined the meeting at 10:37am:

Janet Hunter Director, Housing Rights Service; and
Nicola McCrudden Policy and Communications Manager, Housing Rights Service.

The representatives provided a briefing on proposed amendments to Clause 2 of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. This was followed by a question and answer session.

Mr Billy Armstrong joined the meeting at 10:40am

Ms Carál Ní Chuilín joined the meeting at 10:40am

The Chairperson thanked the representatives for their briefing.

The representatives left the meeting at 10:42am

5.2 Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny

The Committee continued the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The following officials from the Department joined the meeting at 10:43am:

Stephen Martin Housing Bill Team, DSD
Stephen Baird Housing Bill Team, DSD.

Clause 1 – Homelessness Strategy

The Committee considered the proposed amendment of Clause 1 Article 6A(1) in which the word “may" would be replaced by “shall".

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the amendment would not be brought forward but that the Chairperson would seek assurances at Consideration Stage in respect of the duty of the Housing Executive to produce a Homelessness Strategy. The Committee further agreed that if it was not content with the Ministerial response that it may choose to introduce the amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

Agreed: The Committee agreed, subject to a review of the final wording, that Clause 1 Article 6A(5) be amended to include local councils in the list of organisations that are required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

The Committee considered the proposed amendment relating to the inclusion of the Prison Service in the list of organisations that are required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this amendment until the submission of the final wording of another amendment to the Clause. The latter amendment to include the addition of the Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to the list of organisations required to take the Homelessness Strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

Clause 2 – Duty of Executive to provide advice

Agreed: The Committee agreed, subject to a review of the final wording, that Clause 2 be amended such that the Housing Executive will be required to have regard to the form and content of advice as specified by the Department.

Clause 10 – Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policies and procedures

The Committee considered the Department’s response in relation to measures to tackle anti-social behaviour in social housing.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content with the Department’s response.

Clause 12 – Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would defer consideration on the amendments to increase Housing Council representation or add a tenancy advocate to the Board of the Housing Executive.

Additional Amendments

The Committee considered the Department’s response in relation to a proposed amendment to introduce a code of practice relating to conflicts of interest for Housing Association staff.

Agreed: The Committee accepted the Department’s assurances and agreed to abandon the proposed amendment.

The Committee considered the Department’s response to proposed amendments in relation to the Common Housing Selection Scheme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content with the Department’s response. The Committee further agreed to abandon the proposed amendments on the Common Housing Selection Scheme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would seek assurances that the issues raised by the Committee in relation to the Common Housing Selection Scheme would be taken into consideration during the Department’s ongoing review of the Scheme.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it would consider an amendment relating to the registration of private landlords at the Committee meeting of 12 November 2009.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to note the additional information provided by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) in relation to ex-offenders and homelessness.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their attendance.

The officials left the meeting at 11:30am.

Mr Thomas Burns left the meeting at 11:30am.

Thursday 12 November 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)
Mr Denis Arnold (Bill Clerk) (Item 9)

Apologies: Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10.03am.

9. Housing (Amendment) Bill – Clause-by-clause scrutiny

The Committee continued formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

The following Departmental officials joined the meeting at 11.35am:

Stephen Martin Housing Bill Team; and

Stephen Baird Housing Bill Team.

Clause 1 – Homelessness Strategy

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 1 Page 2 Line 4 be amended as follows: At end insert- ‘( ) district councils;’.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 1 Page 2 Line 9 be amended as follows: At end insert- ‘( ) the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety;’.

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 1 as amended put and agreed to".

Clause 2 – Duty of Executive to provide advice

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 2 Page 4 Line 4 be amended as follows: at end insert- ‘(4 ) In relation to the form and content of advice under paragraph (1) the Executive shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Department.’

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 2 as amended put and agreed to".

Clause 4 – Power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 4 put and agreed to".

Clause 5 – Review of decisions in relation to homelessness

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 5 Page 5 line 14 be amended as follows: Leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘28’.

Agreed: The Committee further agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 5 Page 6 line 19 be amended as follows: Leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘28’.

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 5 as amended put and agreed to".

Clause 12 – Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive

The Committee noted assurances from the Department that, within the restrictions of the public appointments’ process, the Department would seek to encourage applications to the Housing Executive Board from individuals involved in tenancy advocacy.

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 12 put and agreed to".

Clause 14 – Definition of “house in multiple occupation"

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 14 Page 14 line 27 be amended as follows: Leave out from beginning to ‘Article’ in line 29 and insert at the end add ‘and for that purpose’.

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 14 as amended put and agreed to".

Additional Amendments

Registered Rents

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that a new clause be inserted as follows: After Clause 16 insert- ‘Amendment of Article 55 of the Order of 2006 16A. In Article 55 of the Order of 2006 (review of registered rents) at the end add - “(8) An order under paragraph (5) shall be subject to negative resolution.".’.

Registration of Private Landlords

Agreed: The Committee agreed not to adopt an amendment on this issue, but to await a briefing on the 2nd Housing Bill before deciding on the most appropriate legislative procedure.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should seek further information on the registration of private landlords in other jurisdictions in advance of the Departmental briefing in early 2010.

Delegated Powers.

The Committee considered the Examiner of Statutory Rules report on the delegated powers associated with the Bill.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to accept, subject to a review of the final wording, a Departmental amendment which would exempt the regulations prescribing the form of landlord’s notices in Clause 9 from the application of Article 148 of the Housing Order of 2008 and thus make the related regulation subject to negative resolution.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to consider at a later date and as appropriate the possible repeal of Article 148 of the Housing Order of 2008 so as to apply Assembly Procedure to regulations relating to tenancy forms.

The Chairperson thanked the officials for their contribution throughout the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr David Hilditch joined the meeting at 12.02pm

The officials left the meeting at 12.03pm.

Thursday 19 November 2009
Room 135, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Simon Hamilton MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong MLA
Mrs Mary Bradley MLA
Mr Mickey Brady MLA
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Jonathan Craig MLA
Mr Alex Easton MLA
Mr David Hilditch MLA
Ms Anna Lo MLA
Mr Fra McCann MLA

In Attendance: Mr Peter McCallion (Assembly Clerk)
Ms Claire McCanny (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mrs Joy Hamilton (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Allison Ferguson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Ms Carál Ní Chuilín MLA

The meeting began in public session at 10.05am.

Thomas Burns left the meeting at 11:52am.

9. Housing Amendment Bill

Clause 9 Introductory Tenancies

Agreed: The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that Clause 9 be amended as follows: Page 13, Line 20, Insert at the end ‘(5) In Article 148(3)(b) of the Order of 2003 after the word “regulations" insert “(other than regulations under Article 19A (3))".’

“Question: that the Committee is content with Clause 9 as amended put and agreed to".

Consideration of Draft Report

The Committee considered a draft Report on the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Committee agreed the main body of the report:

Executive Summary, read and agreed

Introduction, read and agreed

Consideration of the Bill, read and agreed

and

Clause-by-Clause Scrutiny of the Bill, read and agreed.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that it was content for the Report to be printed as the Second Report of the Committee for Social Development for session 2009/10.

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the relevant extract from the draft minutes of the proceedings of 19 November 2009 would be included in the Committee’s Report subject to the Chairperson’s authorisation.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. The Chairperson: The emphasis should be on the misery.

19. 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?

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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?

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Ms Ní Chuilín: Sorry, Michael, I was not suggesting that the legislation should amend the rights of tenants in supported living.

31. Mr Sands: I understand that.

32. Ms Ní Chuilín: Variation exists, even among social housing providers.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. Ms Ní Chuilín: They are institutionalised because they are homeless.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. Mr Sands: The provisions in the proposed Bill will assist in dealing with those tenants so that they can be removed and dealt with.

41. 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.

42. 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?

43. The Chairperson: Can the Committee be provided with a table that sets out the differences between the present and the proposed legislation?

44. Mr Sands: We can certainly provide that.

45. 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.

46. Mr F McCann: Can you give us a timeframe?

47. 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.

48. 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?

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. Mr F McCann: Could you also provide other groups with that information?

55. 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.

56. 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?

57. 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.

58. 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?

59. 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.

60. 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?

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. 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.

64. 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.

65. Miss McIlveen: I appreciate that.

66. 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?

67. 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.

68. 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?

69. 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.

70. Ms Ní Chuilín: The £50 million was not all capital.

71. 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.

72. 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.

73. 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.

74. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

75. 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.

76. Ms Nicola McCrudden (Housing Rights Service): That is why Janet is taking the lead today. [Laughter.]

77. The Chairperson: Nevertheless, congratulations. Your submission is simple and easy to follow.

78. Ms Janet Hunter (Housing Rights Service): Thank you for inviting us to comment at this stage of the legislative process — the earlier the better.

79. 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.

80. 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.

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. 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.

84. 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.

85. 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.

86. 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

87. 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.

88. 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.

89. 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".

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. 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.

93. 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.

94. 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.

95. 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.

96. 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.

97. 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.

98. 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.

99. 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".

100. 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.

101. 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.

102. 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.

103. 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?

104. Ms Hunter: We were deeply involved in that consultation.

105. Ms Ní Chuilín: But not in this consultation?

106. Ms Hunter: Not in this consultation, or not until this stage.

107. 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.

108. 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.

109. 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.

110. 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.

111. What is your opinion on that?

112. 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.

113. 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.

114. 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.

115. 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.

116. 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.

117. Ms Hunter: We believe that the proposed definition is more complicated.

118. 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?

119. 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.

120. 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.

121. 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.

122. 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.

123. 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.

124. Do introductory tenancies mean a probationary period of one year before a tenant becomes a secure tenant?

125. Ms Hunter: That is right; for all Housing Executive and housing association tenancies, new tenants are now introductory tenants for a 12-month period.

126. 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.

127. The Chairperson: I want to thank the two ladies for their presentation.

128. 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.

129. 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.

130. Ms Lo: Can we push for feedback on repossession?

131. The Chairperson: Do you mean the mortgage issue? I hope that there will be a presentation on 23 October dealing with that.

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 Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

132. 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.

133. 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.

134. The Chairperson: Do you mean that? You did not sound too genuine. [Laughter.]

135. Mr Sands: Did I not sound sincere? Shall I start again?

136. 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.

137. 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.

138. 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.

139. 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.

140. 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.

141. 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.

142. 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.

143. 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.

144. 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.

145. The Department, therefore, would welcome the Committee’s support for the Bill. I am happy to answer any questions that members may have.

146. 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.

147. 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?

148. 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.

149. The Chairperson: Have they seen the final form of the Bill?

150. 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.

151. Mr Sands: That can only be done once the Minister stands up to introduce the Bill.

152. The Chairperson: When the Bill comes to Committee Stage, people will have issues, and the Committee will also have an input.

153. 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?

154. 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.

155. Mr F McCann: Who will take the decision on whether something is illegal or immoral?

156. 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.

157. Mr F McCann: It seems to be open-ended.

158. 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.

159. 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?

160. 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.

161. Mr F McCann: There is a big difference between “engaging" and “taking on board" the difficulties that people may have.

162. 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.

163. Mr Sands: Of course, we will have to consider those comments.

164. 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.

165. 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.

166. Mr F McCann: I take it that, in drawing up the Bill, we have an opportunity to include young people.

167. Mr Sands: Yes.

168. 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.

169. 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.

170. 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.

171. 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?

172. 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.]

173. The Chairperson: Say that again.

174. 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.

175. The Chairperson: That is better reasoning.

176. 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?

177. 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.

178. 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.

179. 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.

180. Ms Lo: They did not know that this was coming up. I was invited to speak to them at their AGM.

181. Ms Hiles: I will make sure that they are made aware of it.

182. Mr Sands: You will appreciate that we are still talking about the content of it.

183. The Chairperson: Departmental officials are coming to the Committee on 30 April to talk about the private-rented sector strategy.

184. 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.

185. Mr Sands: You will receive a briefing as you did for this meeting.

186. The Chairperson: It will be useful to receive that prior to the presentation.

187. Mr Sands: Now that we know the format that the Committee Clerk requires, we know what to do.

188. The Chairperson: We will certainly let you know.

189. 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?

190. 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.

191. 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.

192. 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.

193. 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?

194. 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.

195. 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?

196. 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.

197. Mr Sands: There is no point in having it just for the registered tenant.

198. Ms Ní Chuilín: We will need clarification of the legal position.

199. 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?

200. 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.

201. The Chairperson: Have councils and housing associations been consulted?

202. Mr Sands: I am not aware that they have.

203. 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.

204. 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.

205. The Chairperson: We will return to this subject. Are members content with what they have heard, or do you need more a searching investigation?

206. Ms Ní Chuilín: We have already asked for further clarification.

207. The Chairperson: Yes. Are Members content?

Members indicated assent.

208. The Chairperson: The witnesses have had a very easy ride: the next one might not be as easy.

209. Mr Sands: It is one of the benefits of coming late on the agenda.

210. 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.

211. 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.

212. The Chairperson: Thank you.

17 September 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Caral Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

213. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome the representatives of the Housing Rights Service to this morning’s Committee meeting. Janet Hunter is its director and Nicola McCrudden is the policy and communications manager. The Committee has received a submission from the Housing Rights Service on the Housing (Amendment) Bill, with a supplement to that in the tabled items. Ms Hunter will make some introductory remarks, to be followed by members’ questions.

214. Ms Janet Hunter (Housing Rights Service): Thank you for this opportunity to come back and speak to the Committee, now that we have had an opportunity to review the text of the legislation in detail. As we said previously, the Housing Rights Service does not have any major concerns about the Bill; it is largely uncontroversial. It contains a number of provisions that we are keen to see reach the statute book. In the interests of brevity, our submission will focus on the provisions contained in the Bill and will highlight one or two areas in which we think that changes in wording would improve the Bill. As well as that, I will highlight two areas of the Bill about which we have more substantial concerns

215. Clause 1 is about placing a duty on the Housing Executive to formulate a homelessness strategy. The clause states that the Housing Executive:

“may formulate and publish a homelessness strategy".

216. That is an unusual form of words to use. Locally, in legislation, the use of “may" generally implies a power rather than a duty. Having read the rest of clause 1 and the explanatory and financial memorandum and having been involved in the background to the Bill, we know that that is not the Department’s intention. The intention is to introduce a requirement for such a strategy. To avoid possible ambiguity in any future interpretation of clause 1, our recommendation is that “may" be changed to “will".

217. We have more substantive concerns about clause 4, which are outlined in our supplementary paper. Clause 4 gives the Department the power to prescribe the form of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive offers to people who present to it as homeless and who are undergoing a formal assessment process. The Housing Executive has had that duty for over 20 years. Although we would not claim that there could not be some improvement in how the Housing Executive discharges that duty, that alone does not warrant legislative intervention or the provision of guidance from the Department to the Housing Executive.

218. The background to all the homelessness provisions in the Bill is supposed to be the work of the promoting social inclusion (PSI) group on homelessness and ‘Including the Homeless’, a strategy published by the Department for Social Development. As a member of the PSI group and as someone who was involved in those discussions all those years ago, I am clear that, as it stands, clause 4 represents neither the spirit nor the intention of the working group, nor does it reflect the intention of the Department as stated in ‘Including the Homeless’, in which the recommendation was for:

“DSD Housing Division to amend the law to provide for NIHE to have statutory responsibility for ensuring advice is available and to regulate the form of advice and the means of provision."

219. That recommendation is about introducing a new and additional duty; it is not about something that has been in existence for 20 years. That distinction is important because a central theme of the strategy is to try to place increasing emphasis on the prevention of homelessness and recognising the key role that good-quality advice can play in preventing homelessness if it is delivered early in the process. One example that is relevant in the current economic climate is the provision of debt advice to someone who is in mortgage arrears. Good advice given at the right time can prevent someone from losing their home as a consequence of debt. That is different from the type of advice that the Housing Executive will be giving to someone who is already homeless. I hope that that helps the Committee to understand the distinction.

220. The PSI group felt that that distinction was so important that it recommended that a new, broader duty be imposed on the Housing Executive to ensure that advice and assistance was available to any person, free of charge, when he or she is faced with the threat of homelessness. In that case, people would not have to be at the crisis stage of formally presenting as a homeless person.

221. Clause 2 introduces a new, broader duty of providing advice, and it is that duty around which the Department needs to be prescriptive and produce guidance. The Department must ensure that that duty is implemented effectively, the advice is comprehensive and covers the full scope of issues and the quality of that advice can be assured. That is a fundamental point, as it would bring us in line with the position in England, Wales and Scotland. When the duty to provide advice was introduced in those places, it was quickly realised that without guidance from the relevant Department to ensure that the advice was comprehensive, that advice was largely ineffective.

222. I hope that I have conveyed the importance of that point and how we feel that what is represented in the Bill does not reflect in any way the intention of the original working group on homelessness. Later, the Committee will hear from the Council for the Homeless and the Simon Community, organisations that were also involved in that working group, and I hope that they can support us on that point.

223. I draw members’ attention to a technical point around clause 5. We have covered that in our written submission and, I suspect, it is one of those things that is easier to cover in writing than verbally. Clause 5 introduces a statutory right to a review of an adverse homeless decision. The clause includes a recommendation that the Housing Executive should, during any review process, be able to provide the applicant with temporary accommodation. A similar issue concerning the Housing Executive’s ability to provide temporary accommodation is covered later in the clause. However, as currently drafted, the wording of the two proposed new articles is different. To ensure consistency, our recommendation is that where the two similar issues are covered in the same clause, the wording should be the same.

224. Clause 10 relates to antisocial behaviour. The clause suggests that there should be a statutory requirement on the Housing Executive to publish its policies and procedures in relation to antisocial behaviour. We fully support that proposal, and we absolutely agree with the Department’s rationale for introducing it: not only will it allow tenants to see how any complaints that they may have in relation to antisocial behaviour will be progressed, it lets them know the standard of behaviour expected of them as tenants.

225. Our advisers would very much welcome the publication of policies and procedures. Those are an important tool when it comes to assisting clients who have issues relating to antisocial behaviour. However, our experience shows that it is not only Housing Executive tenants who are involved as the victims, or alleged perpetrators, of antisocial behaviour. For example, we deal with just as many people who live in the housing association sector. Our clear recommendation is that clause 10 be reworded to extend to all social landlords.

226. I am happy to take questions on those clauses; however, at this stage, I will hand over to Nicola. She will talk about clause 14, which concerns the definition of houses in multiple occupation, which, as I am sure members are aware, we have previously raised concerns about.

227. Ms Nicola McCrudden (Housing Rights Service): Members who have been on the Committee for some time will be aware that we first raised this issue a year ago, when the Minister stated her intention to bring forward the Bill and propose an amendment to the definition of a house in multiple occupation (HMO). We have a number of concerns about clause 14.

228. The rationale for regulating HMOs is to minimise the risk to the heath and safety of the occupants living in them. Therefore, in our view, any amendment to that definition should be viewed as substantive, because it could significantly impact on the rights and protection of people living in such high-risk accommodation. As such, we believe that a thorough consultation should be carried out before any change is implemented. Unfortunately, it is being treated as a technical amendment and is being introduced without proper and due consideration.

229. We also have concerns that the explanatory memorandum to the Bill is, in fact, misleading. The definition being proposed goes further than what is stated in that document. As members are probably aware, the amendment is being introduced as a result of a judgment in 2005, in which a judge criticised the definition of “family member". The view of the Housing Rights Service is that it would require one amendment to address those concerns; that is, a change to the definition of “family member" to ensure that extended family members are not treated as living in HMOs. We agree that that is the only definition that would need changed, but the amendment goes further than that. We feel that that is unnecessary and that the matter has not been given proper consideration.

230. The Bill also amends the definition of a HMO, which will have unintended consequences. It will mean that two unrelated families living under the same roof will no longer be treated as living in a HMO, and will no longer be afforded the protection that the regulations provide. That is very worrying. It has not been pointed out in the explanatory memorandum; therefore, there has been no proper consideration of the potential impact of the amended definition.

231. Thirdly, as I think everyone is aware, there are significant numbers of non-UK nationals, migrant workers and young people living in that form of accommodation. Unfortunately, the equality-impact assessment does not contain any statistics relating to HMOs and their occupancy with regard to migrant workers and young people. That is a concern. There was no consultation on the equality-impact assessment. Had it been put out for consultation, we — along with other stakeholders, including the councils and other colleagues — would have had the opportunity to make some input.

232. The Housing Rights Service agrees that the definition of HMO needs to be reviewed. We believe that the definition as currently worded should be removed from the Bill, and should be subject to proper consultation with key stakeholders. It should be emphasised that councils must be involved in that process, because they will be taking over the statutory responsibility from the Housing Executive for the registration scheme for HMOs under the review of public administration (RPA) in 2011. That is why we recommend that the amended definition should be removed, because if it is included in the legislation, and that is passed in the Assembly, it will have a detrimental impact on people who were never intended to be included in the definition.

233. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. To return to the homelessness strategy, do you consider that the list of organisations, agencies and Departments in clause 1 is complete?

234. Ms Hunter: A lot of the recommendations were made as far back as 2004. Nicola mentioned the forthcoming review of public administration, which is relevant because it will give councils a bigger role, not only in private-rented housing but in the whole community-planning process. It might be good to extend that list to include councils.

235. Ms McCrudden: We suggested that registered housing associations should be required to be involved in the development of the homelessness strategy. They will be involved in implementing it, but, as housing providers, they should also be involved in its development.

236. Ms Hunter: That would make sense, as housing associations will have an increased role in housing provision.

237. The Chairperson: You have touched on a lot of salient points in the Bill, and I know that members will wish to ask some questions.

238. Mr F McCann: I want to make a couple of points. Along with a number of other groups, the Housing Rights Service took part in drawing up a homelessness strategy in 2004. Having spoken to some of those groups, I understand that there were concerns that by the time that the strategy was implemented, a lot of its content would be out of date and would need to be upgraded. I notice that you said that the Bill is a tidying-up exercise to take account of some issues that were raised. Do you not feel that the Bill presents an opportunity to deal with some other outstanding issues; not only antisocial behaviour, but homelessness and immigrants? If we miss this opportunity, it may be years before we are again in a position to deal with those issues.

239. Ms Hunter: We agree with that. A lot of the things that were talked about as part of the formulation of the homelessness strategy did not make it into the final document. There are other legislative reforms to deal with homelessness and the broader housing world that we would be keen to see being made. Our understanding was that, at this stage, it was almost too late to bring those things to the table and that the opportunity to debate them would come with plans for any future housing legislation; for example, legislation around the private-rented sector. If we had a carte blanche, we could add a lot more to this.

240. Mr F McCann: I am concerned that it could be years before a lot of those issues can be picked up on. We have an opportunity now. This Bill goes to the Assembly and it is for political parties to debate it in the House, but it would be a wasted opportunity not to pick up on a number of the outstanding issues. For instance, Nicola spoke about HMOs. The interpretation that we were given is fairly vague, as you said. I would like to see you expand on what that actually means to people in houses of multiple occupation. It would give us a good insight into how that matter is approached. We were also told that, because of the court case that took place, you may have little room for manoeuvre; however, you are saying that that is not exactly the case.

241. Ms Hunter: Yes, Nicola was quite clear on that point. The issue around the court case was about the definition of “family member", not the definition of HMOs. It is our view that that legal concern could have been dealt with simply by changing the definition of “family member". Our view on that is very clear.

242. Ms McCrudden: The amended definition is the Scottish one. The practice of lifting clauses from other jurisdictions and introducing them locally is probably a throwback to direct rule. It seems to be felt that, because something has been used in other jurisdictions, it can be brought in here. However, Scotland never had our definition, so we do not see why we need to bring in its definition. It has gone beyond what the judge’s concerns were, so we think that that change in definition is unnecessary.

243. Mr F McCann: The issue of antisocial activity affects not only the elected representatives here, it affects everyone in society; we are all inundated with problems to do with it. We have been told that there is sufficient scope in the Housing Executive’s regulations to deal with antisocial behaviour. If that is the case, has the problem not been dealt with by the Housing Executive? There is talk about publishing those regulations; how will that impact on antisocial activity?

244. Ms McCrudden: Requiring the Housing Executive to publish that information would mean that there is more transparency. Our concern is not to do with the Housing Executive, because we have that information already. Our concern relates more to housing associations because not all of them have policies and procedures and sometimes it can be difficult for our advisers to get their hands on that information. If somebody comes to us with a complaint that another tenant is being antisocial, it takes us a while to get the information on how the association will deal with it and whether it is following its procedures. It is very important that housing associations be required to publish that information so that they are transparent. It would also mean that the Housing Rights Services, and other groups like us, may have an opportunity to input to their procedures and policies. Therefore, it is not only to do with the Housing Executive; it is broader than that.

245. Mr F McCann: Do you regard the Housing Executive’s regulations as being ample to deal with antisocial activity? Are those the sort of regulations that should apply across all social providers, including housing associations and the private-rented sector?

246. Ms McCrudden: My understanding is that the housing associations have similar powers to those of the Housing Executive in the procedures that they follow and the eviction process for a tenant who is being antisocial. For example, they all have introductory tenancies, which was brought in under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and means that tenancy is probationary for one year and there is a quick process for a landlord to evict a tenant who is being antisocial. That applies to both the Housing Executive and housing associations. We think that there is sufficient legislation and powers, but they have to be enforced and used.

247. Ms Hunter: Making the process transparent will assist in that.

248. Mr F McCann: You mentioned the duty on the Housing Executive to formulate a homelessness strategy, and I understand that that strategy is supposed to be reviewed every five years. I am not sure whether it was representatives of the Simon Community who told us that if it has taken four years for the original recommendations to be made into a strategy, to wait another five years will mean that ten years will have passed before the review takes place. In the South, a group looks at all aspects of homelessness and other housing-related issues. Rather than relying solely on the Housing Executive, would you see such a group as well-placed to do that review and pull together the family-housing sector, as was done with the PSI group on homelessness?

249. Ms Hunter: That would be useful. That sort of model was created with PSI, when it was not only the statutory players who were involved in discussions; the voluntary sector and other key stakeholders were involved. It is important to continue with that model because those groups have a lot to bring to the table in such discussions, and PSI is proof of that.

250. Mr Hilditch: Is there much of a difference between the Housing Executive policy on antisocial behaviour and that of the registered housing associations? Have you been able to get a hold of any of the housing association policies?

251. Ms Hunter: That is one of the difficulties. It is hard to say because, as we cannot access the policies, we are not able to draw those comparisons. Our advisers inform us that some of the housing associations have policies that are fairly easy to access and that are similar to the Housing Executive’s, but they also say that it is difficult to access the policies of some other housing associations. That does not mean that they do not have a policy in place, but in its absence, it is difficult for us to progress work on behalf of a client.

252. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. In your comments on clause 4, you emphasised the need for proper and comprehensive advice on homelessness, because the Housing Executive’s current advice is minimal.

253. Ms Hunter: That is correct; it is narrow and, at present, the requirement for it is also narrow. However, there is little point in introducing a new, broader duty unless guidance is offered on how that should be implemented. There is, therefore, a need to redraft clause 4 and relocate it so that it clearly relates to the new duty, which is contained in clause 2, and not to the existing duties. As you rightly say, currently the advice is minimal and I do not believe that it would prevent anyone from becoming homeless, which is what the whole thrust of the strategy is supposed to be.

254. Mr Brady: The Housing Executive’s advice on the wider issue of homelessness is minimal. Do you think that it is incumbent on DSD to widen the scope of that advice? I think that that is what you are saying. Do you think, as I do, that there is a need for specialist homelessness advisers in the Housing Executive and that providing such advice should not be the responsibility of someone at the front counter who does not know much about it? Anyone who has dealt with such issues over the years or has sought advice will know that such advice is sadly lacking. If you are introducing legislation, it has to be backed up, because prevention is better than cure.

255. Ms Hunter: That is correct, and that is the point that we are trying to make. The Department has gone part of the way by introducing a new duty, but without introducing the guidance to ensure that that is implemented effectively, there is little point in introducing it, because it could still mean very little to people on the ground. For the new duty to be effective, it needs to be accompanied by prescription or some form of guidance from the Department.

256. Mr Brady: It is pointless to introduce the legislation unless there is strong backup. It will not solve the problem; it will not go even close to solving it.

257. Ms Hunter: Without that back up, it is largely tokenism. The experience in England, Wales and Scotland has been just that: a duty was introduced, and several years later it became apparent that it had no teeth unless there was guidance to describe what that advice should look like in order to have an impact on people and prevent them becoming homeless.

258. The Chairperson: To return to the issue of HMOs; it seems that the explanatory advice gives scant regard to the potential consequences of the change in definition. You have suggested that the amended definition should be removed and that there should be further consultation, but have you any preference for what a better clause should look like?

259. Ms McCrudden: As I said, one way to address the issue would be to amend the definition of the phrase “family member". That would address the judge’s concerns and those of the Department and the Minister. I do not think the Housing Rights Service is best placed to come up with a definition and form of words on its own.

260. The Chairperson: Is it not simple or straightforward?

261. Ms McCrudden: It is extremely complex. We have appeared before the Committee three times trying to explain it. The wording of the legislation is very complex, and it is very difficult for landlords to know whether their property is classified as a HMO. Any tinkering with the wording could have a significant impact on people. We are not confident in doing it on our own, but we would like to work with others, including the Department, the Housing Executive and councils, to try and come up with a Northern Ireland definition that suits our circumstances in today’s environment.

262. The Chairperson: It is easy to see who would be negatively impacted by the proposed changes, but who would be impacted positively?

263. Ms McCrudden: People affected positively would be those with aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews living in their accommodation. Currently, if one is living in a property with those relatives, that property could be classed as a HMO. It was never the policy intention to include such people in the definition, because a lot of people here live with their extended families.

264. The new definition will remove lodgers from the equation, but there are other ways of doing that. There could be a separate clause excluding lodgers, so that if a husband and wife rent a room to someone else, their property could be classed as a HMO. We have no objections to lodgers being excluded, but the new wording will mean that two families sharing a house will be excluded from the definition of a HMO. Such a situation can often happen with migrant workers. We do not feel that that has been properly thought through.

265. The Chairperson: It sorts one problem out but gives rise to another. In relation to the publication of policies on antisocial behaviour, you said that references to the Housing Executive in article 27A should be changed to include all social landlords. When you say “social landlords", you clearly mean registered housing associations. What do you intend the wording to be.

266. Ms Hunter: That is what we mean. We want it to include registered housing associations.

267. The Chairperson: You are not straying into the private-rented sector?

268. Ms Hunter: No, because there have been difficulties with that in the past.

269. The Chairperson: That was my fear.

270. Ms Hunter: We are suggesting that registered housing associations be included.

271. Ms McCrudden: Housing is allocated from a common waiting list; so if a tenant is allocated a Housing Executive or housing association property, those should be treated exactly the same. We cannot see any justification for having differences.

272. Ms Hunter: People generally do have the same rights and entitlements; there is very little difference. We think that that parity should be maintained as a matter of principle.

273. The Chairperson: They may pay more rent for the place.

274. Mr F McCann: On the back of that, there is more reliance on the private-rented sector to provide houses for the social sector. Why should that sector be excluded when the other two social housing providers are being asked to take on those responsibilities? When dealing with the private sector, your organisation deals with a lot of cases, as other groups bear testimony to. You deal with illegal evictions, overcharging, poor housing, etc. How can those things be dealt with if that sector is excluded from the legislation?

275. Ms McCrudden: You have raised an interesting issue. The clause is being inserted into the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 at a point relating to injunctions for antisocial behaviour. All landlords, including private landlords, can apply for injunctions to prevent a tenant from being antisocial. I do not know whether any private landlords have done so.

276. The Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland (LANI) took a case involving the HMO judgement against the Housing Executive under the HMO registration scheme. LANI argued that it was not a public authority and should not, therefore, have the same obligations imposed on it as other housing providers. LANI won the case.

277. Ms Hunter: We do not necessarily agree with that, but the case has already been lost.

278. Mr F McCann: Surely a body that receives nearly £100 million of public money annually to deal with the issue should have to adhere to the same rules and regulations affecting the other two.

279. Ms Hunter: We agree, but we are aware that the legal debate has been lost.

280. The Chairperson: It is a minefield.

281. Ms McCrudden: We are starting to stray into issues of private-rented accommodation. The Committee is aware that we support registration, but that is for another day.

282. Mr F McCann: That is if it is ever dealt with at all.

283. The Chairperson: We will come back to that. We have concentrated, naturally, on some of the parts of the Bill about which you are not overly happy. You said that you generally welcome the Bill. Do you want to highlight any positive clauses to the Committee?

284. Ms Hunter: We are extremely supportive of the duty to form a homelessness strategy, as long as it is exactly that; a duty. We have long been concerned that, in Northern Ireland, no statutory right existed to request a review of an adverse decision, whereby the Housing Executive states that an individual is not homeless. We always considered that to be unfair. We are delighted that that is coming on to the statute books.

285. We also strongly support clause 2, which broadens the duty to provide advice and changes the emphasis to the prevention of homelessness. However, as I said, our reservations are that clause 4, as drafted, could render that meaningless, and that would mean the loss of a valuable opportunity.

286. The Chairperson: Before I let you go, I will recap your evidence and go through the reasons why you are here today, because members may wish to express their views or put further questions to you. I will try to synthesize your evidence as best I can. Feel free to correct me.

287. The Housing Rights Service has made the following suggestions: the requirement to produce a strategy should be strengthened; the type of advice on homelessness should be specified; temporary accommodation for those awaiting decisions should be provided; housing associations should publish a policy on antisocial behaviour, and the HMO clause, which is clause 14, should be removed. Do members wish to express their views at this stage?

288. Ms Lo: We had a long, detailed meeting with the Housing Rights Service, and I strongly support what it has said today. The new HMO definition will create ambiguity and cause many problems. Some health and safety issues will arise as an unintended consequence. I strongly support the removal of that clause. A proper public consultation should take place on that subject. Let us get it right, rather than rushing into including that clause.

289. The Chairperson: If members have no further views, we will come back to that subject during the deliberations on our report. Thank you, Nicola and Janet, for your useful evidence today.

290. Ms Hunter: Thank you.

291. The Chairperson: We are now joined by representatives from the Simon Community: Paddy McGettigan, the director of housing and support services; Ciara O’Hagan, director of finance and facilities, and Alyson Kilpatrick. You are welcome, and thank you for coming to the meeting. As with the previous session, perhaps you will provide a few introductory remarks about your submission, after which I will open the session for members’ questions.

292. Mr Paddy McGettigan (Simon Community Northern Ireland): Thank you. I want to clarify that Alyson Kilpatrick is a board member with the Simon Community Northern Ireland. She is also a barrister at law and an expert in housing.

293. The Chairperson: We met informally, during the summer, at the Housing Commission

294. Ms Alyson Kilpatrick (Simon Community Northern Ireland): I am not wearing that hat today.

295. Mr McGettigan: The Simon Community thanks the Chairperson and Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, I want to say that we fully endorse and support the comments made by the Housing Rights Service in its submission. You will see a correlation between some of the points in our submission and some of their remarks.

296. We want to concentrate on issues relating to the development homelessness strategy. Although Simon Community Northern Ireland has seen a decrease in the number of people who referring as homeless, we believe that it is essential that the work carried out following the publication of the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy is continued and have concerns that there have been some suggestions that the work of the steering group and subgroups should be reduced. The DSD strategy document also recommends that it be a statutory requirement for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to publish a homelessness strategy and, therefore, we welcome its inclusion in the Bill.

297. Now, more than ever, given the current climate, there is a need to concentrate on social-inclusion issues. It must be recognised that the challenges facing the sector, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as the statutory authority, are unprecedented. The development of a homelessness strategy must, therefore, become a priority in order to give clear direction to all providers.

298. The Simon Community Northern Ireland believes that, given the current environment, the suggestion in the Bill that the Housing Executive develop a five-year strategy is unrealistic. We recommend that the strategy should be developed for no more than three years, with an annual review to allow for appropriate action to be taken in a time of change.

299. The development of a homelessness strategy is essential to the targeting of limited resources in order to ensure the cost-effective use of public funds and to maximise value for money. The supporting people team is already leading the way in trying to encourage joint-working initiatives and co-operation in order to develop more effective ways of working. That work must be supported with the appropriate strategy in order to give a clear way forward for all providers. That would also help to provide some stability to the sector and allow organisations to plan ahead with some degree of confidence.

300. When it comes to the co-operation of other statutory organisations, it is essential that the organisations listed in the proposed article 6A, paragraph 5, be required to take account of, and give effect to, the strategy. Without that approach, the effect of any strategy will be severely limited. We see the strategy as an opportunity to point in the direction of homelessness prevention, highlighting the need for community education on homelessness. A co-ordinated approach to homelessness prevention involving all Departments in the Executive is essential. In addition, the strategy must point the way forward in securing community ownership of the problem of homelessness.

301. Ms Ciara O’Hagan (Simon Community Northern Ireland): For future provision and regulation, we suggest that the development of a homelessness strategy provides an opportunity for the Housing Executive to carry out a critical analysis of the homelessness sector and its own landlord function. In the current climate, the Housing Executive has been under increasing pressure financially; and, as the largest social landlord, it must look at how it is to maintain, sustain and develop its property base in the future.

302. The Simon Community suggests that the homelessness strategy looks at the development of options, such as community housing companies, as an effective way of providing opportunities for the cost-effective management of social housing without increasing the demands on the public purse. That could offer a way forward for community ownership linked to community regeneration, development, and a shared future in housing. There are also links to community planning, RPA, council reform and the management of community behaviour.

303. The Simon Community recognises the need for the private rented sector to be seen as one of the solutions to future housing need. However, we suggest that regulation of that sector is necessary, using a balanced approach that will encourage the inclusion of the many excellent landlords already operating within the sector. At the same time, such regulation will act as an effective disincentive to poor practice and have the overall aim of providing an affordable housing option. Regulation of the private-rented sector could provide assurances, with respect to standards, in that type of accommodation and be seen as a reasonable way of providing housing for people on the common selection scheme list.

304. In summary, the Simon Community sees the requirement to publish a homelessness strategy as essential to mapping the way forward. We believe that it offers the best opportunity to provide innovative solutions, to secure a collective approach to the problem of homelessness and to strengthen our Northern Ireland communities.

305. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will open up the meeting for members’ questions.

306. Mr F McCann: Over the past number of years, the private-rented sector has performed what has been termed as “taking up the slack" with respect to the lack of social housing. If that sector is to be more widely used, how far would you go with legislation? For example, would it be mandatory legislation? Surely, at the minute, quite a number of people are being grossly abused by landlords through poor conditions and by being charged over and above the rate of housing benefit. How would you deal with that?

307. Ms O’Hagan: That is a big question. There are already good landlords working in the private-rented sector. The Housing Executive relies on that sector and puts homeless people into private-rented-sector houses. The legislation must be regulatory in allowing people to register and continue as private-rented landlords, but not so onerous that it discourages them from registering and being subjected to standards. If landlords do not register, that will force people towards an almost black-market economy in the private-rented sector. I suppose that the standard needs to be at a level where it is not a barrier for private-rented landlords to sign up to such a register.

308. Mr F McCann: Surely, strong regulations, which are currently not in place, will start to pull this unregulated sector into line. In England, opinions are starting to change on how the private-rented sector has been treated. Obviously, a large section of private landlords provide an excellent service, but a sizeable rump of them do not, and they grossly abuse their tenants.

309. The Chairperson: Fra, we are in danger of straying into an entirely different issue.

310. Mr F McCann: It came up during the debate, but I will move on.

311. Your documentation refers to how you would deal with 16 year olds and 17 year olds. Will you elaborate on that?

312. Mr McGettigan: We are concerned that the Housing (Amendment) Bill does not include anything about that group being a priority need: we understood that that was going to be part of the Bill. However, we have been advised that a process is ongoing that will bring that part of legislation forward without the need for it to be included in this Bill. Case law on the issue has developed in England. In May 2009, the case of G versus Southwark went through the House of Lords, and we believe that that will set a precedent in law. The choice is whether to set legislative requirements or allow case law to develop that will point the way anyway.

313. Ms Kilpatrick: Sixteen year olds and 17 year olds who leave care here are not automatically considered to be in priority need, whereas they are in Great Britain. They could be accepted as being vulnerable for another reason, but I have only seen that happen in a handful of occasions. As a matter of law, I can see no reason why either primary legislation, which could have been included in the Bill, or secondary legislation could not have stated that 16 year olds and 17 year olds leaving care are considered to be in priority need. That would mean that they would be accepted by the Housing Executive as being owed a housing duty.

314. Mr McGettigan: Even more worrying are the cases of 16 year olds and 17 year olds who have no care history. Quite often, they are shifted between the health authorities and the Housing Executive, with no one taking real responsibility for them. The Simon Community feels that those young people are at real risk, because they do not have support. It is also an issue for young people who leave care, but, generally, they have social work support and a number of agencies working with them. Young people who leave home one night after falling out with their parents and have nowhere to go are at real risk in the current system.

315. Mr F McCann: Around 20,000 people declare themselves homeless each year, and less than half are accepted as homeless. I am always trying to work out where the rest of them go, but I take it that many 16 year olds and 17 year olds are left to their own devices.

316. Mr McGettigan: We have no definite figures on that. However, the point links back to the duty to give advice and assistance. Under the legislation, no such duty lies with the Housing Executive. We think that a child in such a position should be assessed as a child in need, but the health authorities are reluctant to take young people of that age into care. If a child were to be assessed as a child in need, he or she would automatically enter the care system.

317. The case that went through the House of Lords in May 2009 clarified that the primary responsibility for a young person of that age presenting as homeless lay with the health authority and that they could not be regarded under homelessness legislation. I think that, eventually, the precedent from that case will apply here. The issue comes up day in and day out, and, from a practical point of view, a young person who presents as homeless at a Housing Executive office is often told to go to a social work office. When they present at a social work office, they are often told to go the other way. That toing and froing is not helpful.

318. Ms Kilpatrick: For those looking at the legislation, it must be clarified as to who owes the duty. Do the two agencies owe it? Should they liaise with each other? If so, what is the duty? How do you discharge that duty to them? Does it encompass accommodation needs, support needs and social services needs? That is what people need to grasp. Who owes the duty and how is it discharged?

319. Mr McGettigan: We are going back to the point that we made in our submission about the homelessness strategy. The development of the strategy is a great opportunity, but it will not work unless there is buy-in from all Departments. There are links throughout education, health and employment, which need to be considered in tandem if we are to address the issue of homelessness.

320. Mr Hilditch: I think that Ms Kilpatrick has already referred to my next point. The proposed statutory rule, the Homeless (Priority Need for Accommodation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2009 will replicate the English and Welsh situation. Will that address the concerns here?

321. Ms Kilpatrick: I think that it will. There is case law, albeit from the English Court of Appeal; and I think that one of the points was taken in the House of Lords, which makes it fairly clear. It takes longer to feed through the courts, but I think that the Order will fill the gap.

322. Ms Lo: I agree with what you say about the 16 year olds and the 17 year olds declaring themselves homeless: often, it is a ping-pong situation. From my experience as a family and childcare social worker, I know that social services are reluctant to take on anyone at age 17. With the closing of so many children’s homes, they do not have places for them. Often, as you say, they disappear. They could be sleeping on the streets, finding themselves in vulnerable situations and going to live with inappropriate people.

323. Mr McGettigan: There were approximately 2,800 referrals last year, and 50% of the people who are referred to us are under 25. The majority are around the ages of 16 and 18.

324. The Chairperson: You spoke about developing community housing companies. Will you elaborate on what the role of such a company would be and how that would differ from that of a registered housing association?

325. Mr McGettigan: We relate that to the current arrangement in the Housing Executive, which is regulator and landlord. If you are to look at real community involvement in the future, an opportunity to address the issues around antisocial behaviour, community development, community planning and community regeneration could be linked to giving ownership to the community by way of their housing. Therefore, it is an opportunity to create a housing company from existing structures within the Housing Executive. They are structured along district and area lines.

326. If ownership of accommodation was registered as a housing company, with a board that was made up of local people and local businessmen and linked to the new council structures, it would provide an opportunity to give ownership back to the community and have the people invest in their communities. That has the potential to help to give some of the answers to antisocial behaviour, because people are less likely to destroy or be at odds with something if they feel that they belong to it or have ownership of it. Alyson has some knowledge of the linkages from some of the work that she has done.

327. Ms Kilpatrick: It is clear from what I have looked at here and in England, Wales and Scotland that the areas in which the community invests in housing and in the area, the children and young people who are responsible for antisocial behaviour — although not only them — tend to be regulated within the community, and I do not mean in a summary justice sort of way.

328. There have also been positive results in relation to some of the work that has been done with Travellers.

329. When travellers are residing in sites that they have some permanent connection to, there are fewer complaints from neighbours and the accommodation is well looked after.

330. The point about antisocial behaviour and the publishing of policies ties in closely with the idea of a community strategy. The policy could take account of the housing companies’ views on antisocial behaviour in the locality. Publishing the policy is important not only for reasons of transparency; it can also help to ensure accountability. There is accountability to the person about whom the complaint is being made, because sometimes complaints that are made are unjustified and arise as a result of different cultural beliefs and ways of behaving or as a result of behaviour that is simply bizarre and it is not fair that the person is targeted as being antisocial.

331. The publication of the policy also means that the Housing Executive can be held to account when it fails to take action on antisocial people living in an area. It can be asked why it has not applied the policy — in relation to a particular family, for example — and can be expected to provide a written reason for that. The people living in the locality can then decide whether to challenge the Housing Executive’s failure to take action. The publication of the policy, so that people can understand what is in it and how it is applied, is essential to accountability and transparency. That ties in very closely with bringing the community housing groups much more into the focus of all these policies.

332. The provision of advice and assistance was raised by the Housing Rights Service and it is possibly one of the most important things that can be achieved through the Bill. All my experience has been in representing local authorities and, mostly, the homeless applicant. If a person has presented as homeless and the decision has been taken that they are not owed a duty, it is too late. The only thing that can be done is to instruct a solicitor or barrister to take the matter to the High Court, which can take 12 months. In the meantime, that person is usually not in temporary accommodation; certainly not in suitable accommodation.

333. To effectively prevent homelessness, the advice and assistance has to include practical elements, such as taking someone to a letting agency or introducing them to the private sector. The English system, in which there was not prescribed guidance, simply did not work and made no different whatsoever; people simply fell back to consulting lawyers. I do not think that anyone wants to see lawyers being the only answer.

334. The Chairperson: Except the lawyers. [Laughter.]

335. Ms Kilpatrick: Even I do not want to see that.

336. Mr McGettigan: There is also the opportunity for housing companies to have a structure in which it is possible to borrow against assets and to realise funding through private finance, whereas the Housing Executive does not presently have the finance to do what it needs to. There is an increasing demand on budgets in this Building and there is a projected Budget deficit next year. There is already a deficit of £100 million in the housing budget this year. We must look into finding a range of solutions and having real community ownership for a shared future.

337. The Chairperson: That is something that the likes of the Commission on the Future for Housing in Northern Ireland is looking at as well.

338. You said that advice on homelessness should be available to everyone in Northern Ireland regardless of status. With specific reference to migrant workers, immigrant workers and those seeking asylum here, I have a question about how practical that is in respect of two factors: the limited resource available and the potential conflict with existing immigration law. Scotland has pushed the matter a bit, but what are your views on the ability for us in Northern Ireland to step outside immigration law as it stands and the consequential knock-on effect on resources that that would inevitably entail?

339. Mr McGettigan: We recently saw a situation develop in Belfast in which we had to deal with the problem after it had happened. To return to the issue of prevention, if we can give people appropriate housing advice and assistance, that will, in some cases, reduce the long term problems that exist.

340. Ms Kilpatrick: If I understand you correctly, Chairperson, you were talking about those people who are ineligible for any housing assistance, including advice. People are frightened even to discuss who should help people who have been declared ineligible for assistance. An opportunity exists to be a little more creative. It is not a question of the Executive having to go out and find the people who need advice and assistance. However, there could be some mechanism whereby if anyone presents as homeless at an early stage or presents as being in mortgage arrears and having had repossession proceedings issued against them, the Housing Executive or a housing association could be notified and could provide that advice and assistance.

341. Organisations such as the Simon Community will assist those people to whom nothing can, in effect, be offered. Essential advice can be given on health issues and on access to education for children for however long is necessary. It is a contentious and difficult subject, but something must be done to provide for those people who receive no other assistance.

342. The Chairperson: I raised that because it is a difficult and sensitive issue. Even raising the issue can create a problem as one can be pigeonholed as having a particular view. I am aware of the problem. The consequence of offering help, even if it is simply advice and assistance, is that it can steamroll into other areas such as education and health, which you mentioned. Some of the individuals concerned have passports that are stamped “no recourse to public funds", and that can raise tricky legal issues.

343. Ms Kilpatrick: Thankfully, that is a political rather than a legal question, and I will duck it completely. However, if something is to be done for such people, those loose ends must be tied up, and it must be decided what duty, if any, is owed and who owes it.

344. Mr McGettigan: The problem exists already. Last year, 84 migrant workers to whom no duty was owed were referred to the Simon Community. We fully support such people through our fundraising initiatives and the money that we raise in the community. However, that is not sustainable. Ultimately, some Department will have to deal with the issue, as was recently the case with the Romany families in Belfast.

345. Surely we want to prevent a recurrence of that type of situation by providing good housing advice, assistance and support at a stage when it could make a real difference, before Northern Ireland and Belfast, or any other city here, becomes stigmatised? The television reports that we saw recently were not nice to witness. A collective approach is needed and, as Alyson said, a political decision is required to try to find a way forward.

346. The Chairperson: I understand the problem. It is even more acute when dozens of people are involved, but we should all be concerned if even one person presents with a problem. If no help can be offered, what happens to that person? He or she may disappear and fall into awful circumstances; we do not know. Equally, as sympathetic as we all may be, it is a tricky problem to resolve, as we all recognise.

347. Mr F McCann: Recently I heard someone from the Simon Community talking about the lack of obligation to help migrant workers to find accommodation, even initially. Should the Bill be used to help people who come here? Where does the responsibility lie? Sometimes that responsibility gets caught between Departments.

348. Mr McGettigan: I think that there is room to specify that housing advice and assistance can be given to migrant workers or those who may not necessarily fall within the statutory remit. Unless it is specified that such advice and assistance can be given, it will not happen, because the Housing Executive would then be operating ultra vires. Clarity must be given. The current situation is unsustainable because, typically, what happens is that those people do not receive advice and assistance. A number of years ago, a case in Coleraine was highlighted. Thankfully, we have not had anything as bad as that since. However, any night of the week, we could have a recurrence of that situation. When somebody dies on the street, it is too late.

349. Mr F McCann: What about including it under the provision of temporary accommodation for people?

350. Ms Kilpatrick: There are different duties already owed to people who are ineligible. The Bill could be amended to state that people who are otherwise ineligible are entitled to advice and assistance and it could describe what that advice and assistance would be. It would then be a question of whether the Housing Executive has the duty to provide that advice; I can see no other body that would provide it. It would be quite easy to stipulate that in the Bill.

351. Mr McGettigan: Currently, we accommodate anyone who presents to us as homeless. However, that is at our cost, and it could not happen without the funding that we get from the public in Northern Ireland. That can add up to a substantial amount of money at the end of each year.

352. Ms Lo: I and a number of other MLAs have people coming to our constituency offices and asking for help. It is then that we realise that those people have no access to public funds. That relates not only to housing issues; other issues are also involved. I am very interested in what you are saying, Alyson; perhaps we can look at that in more detail.

353. We have all been scratching our heads over how to deal with this. Belfast City Council would find it very difficult if there were a repeat of the situation involving the Romany families. Its hands are tied. Unless there are 100 people in crisis, the council cannot trigger a crisis management scheme, and the same goes for the Housing Executive.

354. At the moment, children can be offered accommodation if their family becomes homeless. However, that means taking the children into care, and parents do not want to be separated from their children.

355. Ms Kilpatrick: It can be decided that it is in the best interest of the child to accommodate the family with the children. However, that depends on there being accommodation suitable for a family. You are right; it can end up that only the child is accommodated.

356. Ms Lo: Families do not want to be stigmatised by having their children taken into care.

357. You said that we can put in an amendment to say that under difficult circumstances people with no access to funds can go to an organisation, such as the Housing Executive, and it would have a duty to provide advice and information.

358. Ms Kilpatrick: That would have to be reconciled throughout the Bill. However, the Committee would first have to decide whether it is appropriate that a duty is owed to people who are currently ineligible for assistance. The Bill could be amended to include that duty, but it comes down to political will. If it were decided to amend the Bill in that way, legally, it would be very easy to do that.

359. The Chairperson: It is something that cuts across other issues, for example, immigration, which is not within the preserve of any Department, and there is also a cost issue. However, we are still in the early stages of scrutinising the Bill, so perhaps the Committee Clerk can get back to us on that and we can talk to the Department about it.

360. Mr Brady: At the moment, without the provision of specialist help and advice, the prevailing situation seems to be total confusion. Such knowledge is built up over a period of time. That kind of specialist input and understanding must be given by people who can advise on what exactly is involved for those who do not normally qualify. It goes back to the old adage that prevention is better than cure. If that advice were provided, it would go some way towards sorting out some of the problems that exist, although obviously it would not solve them all.

361. As someone who has worked in an advice centre for many years, it seems to me that the Housing Executive does not actually have specialist knowledge about this issue. As a public body, it should have that knowledge. At present, there is total confusion, and that will continue until that problem is addressed. Rather than the problem being solved, that lack of knowledge is exacerbating the problem.

362. Mr McGettigan: Our experience is that there is a range of situations and, depending on the district or area office that someone goes to, they will either get a good response or a poorer response. Therefore, I cannot comment using a broad brushstroke. Having managed temporary accommodation and having worked closely with Housing Executive staff, I know that they have an excellent track record in trying to accommodate and help people. That cannot be taken away from them. However, improvements can always be made.

363. In times of change, in which the Housing Executive must make adjustments to its organisation, people who previously worked in areas such as housing benefit are now on the front desk giving information and advice to people. Those individuals need to be supported and given the proper tools to do their job. It is essential that when someone walks through the door of a Housing Executive office, the person who gives him or her advice knows, if not how it all works, at least, how to access that information.

364. Mr Brady: I absolutely agree with your comments. That has been my experience. However, my point is that because it is such an important issue, advice should not be hit and miss. It should not depend on whether you speak to someone who might know more than someone else. Advice should be equal throughout the sector.

365. Mrs M Bradley: Paddy is correct: we cannot comment using broad brushstrokes. In certain areas, advice is good; in others, it is weaker. We must ensure that staff are given proper training, so that they can provide good advice in all areas. It is not enough to have good provision in one area and different provision in another. That is not good enough. We must deal with that.

366. Ms Kilpatrick: There is also a problem with access to independent legal advice. Heroic work is being done by the Housing Rights Service and various advice agencies. However, only the Housing Rights Service gives housing advice. You can have all the laws in the world, but if people do not challenge decisions or are not represented in court, it does not matter what is on the statute book.

367. That is where the legal profession — I hold my hands up — needs to take responsibility. There are no specialist groups of advisers. There are no pro bono units that deal with housing. In England, the big difference is that many lawyers started to, at first, act for free and then got together in groups to offer representation. Some people say that there are too many of them now, but here there are not really any.

368. The Chairperson: To sum up your comments: you suggest that there should be a three-year strategy for homelessness, with an annual review; the organisations that are listed should be required to implement that strategy; there should be further analysis of the Housing Executive’s role as a landlord in respect of antisocial behaviour; and community housing companies should be developed. Thank you very much for your evidence.

369. We will move on to the next evidence session on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. With us is Ricky Rowledge, director of the Council for the Homeless NI, and Tony McQuillan, its vice-chairperson. Copies of their submission are included in the Committee papers. You are both very welcome. After you make a brief presentation, I will open up the floor for members’ questions.

370. Ms Ricky Rowledge (Council for the Homeless NI): We are coming in at the heels of the hunt. It is left to us to try to reiterate, underpin and echo some of what our colleagues have said about the Bill and, hopefully, add to and provide further clarification on some of the specific comments that were made.

371. In common with our colleagues, we welcome the Bill, and we thank you for the opportunity to respond to it on behalf of our member organisations. However, we feel that there are some areas that we would like to see strengthened. I will focus on the statutory requirement in clause 1, and Tony will touch on some of the other clauses regarding advice, information, HMOs and so on.

372. I want to go back to the establishment of PSI, which was mentioned by the other organisations that made presentations. PSI was supported and championed by Minister Ritchie and the DSD. The foundation of PSI, and some of the recommendations of its report, is what led to the proposed legislative amendments within the Bill. The strength of PSI was that it was cross-departmental and inter-sectoral, and it recognised that homelessness is not just a housing issue.

373. The Housing (Amendment) Bill is an opportunity to do something new and very special in Northern Ireland, by making it a requirement of, and a duty upon, other Departments to work in partnerships with the DSD and the Housing Executive to roll out a homelessness strategy for Northern Ireland. The ownership of that strategy will lie with the Stormont Executive. The strategy should recognise the complex needs often presented by homeless people and recognise that their housing situation comes at the end of many other processes that have gone on in their lives. Such a strategy will make us a forerunner of best practice in the area of homelessness.

374. It is great that there will now be a duty on the Executive to have a homelessness strategy, as opposed to that being a voluntary decision. We agree that it should be reviewed every three years and should, perhaps, run in line with the comprehensive spending review, as that will give us a more practical way of monitoring and evaluating the success of the strategy.

375. However, we do stress very strongly, and we recommend to the Committee, the point that some onus be put on the partner Departments to come up to the mark as regards sharing responsibility for the prevention of homelessness and supporting people who become homeless.

376. PSI has been a tremendous success. As the Committee knows, the initiative is at the end of a two-year process, and a report will be made to the Minister quite soon. One thing that I found incredibly encouraging and which gives me the confidence to say that we would be pushing at an open door if we were to ask for a requirement of duty from other Departments is that, time an again in the review of the past two years, high-level staff in other Departments have said that this is the way forward and that they do not want this kind of joint working to end. They have said that it must be mandated at departmental level in order to improve engagement but that it is working for them as well as working for us in housing.

377. Questions were asked about what could be done for 16 year olds and 17 year olds. The PSI youth subgroup has been doing a lot of work on that issue. It has been understood that there is no need for the proposed change in their priority needs to go through in primary legislation or as an amendment to primary legislation. The change will go through the Assembly and the Executive as a Statutory Instrument in parallel to the Bill. That will give priority need to all 16 year olds and 17 year olds irrespective of whether they have been in a care background or have been in the position of being exploited. On grounds of age alone, they will have priority need status for advice, assistance and housing.

378. Through PSI, joint working and the mandate that has been placed on health and social services, the group has been doing work to try to enumerate how many young people may need accommodation. The group has been looking at the development of joint protocols between health and social services, and it has been trying to ensure that young people no longer get ping-ponged between Departments. The Bill provides the opportunity to strengthen that, and there have been tremendous successes.

379. We have discussed with other agencies the stipulations in the Bill that will possibly focus on all those who are at risk of homelessness or who are assessed as homeless among A8 and A2 nationals. We suggest that clauses in their current form relating to those groups of people be removed from the Bill. Serious consideration will have to be given if we make those groups eligible for particular duties, given that we do not have the ability in law to fund any positive solutions at the other end.

380. Mr McCann, I am not referring to giving those people advice and assistance; that should be our duty to every citizen who lives within the borders of this country. I am talking about any duties being introduced that may end up making people from those groups eligible for accommodation when, at present, we have no way of paying for that. The Stormont Executive must look very seriously at how they will meet that, and I recommend the Human Rights Commission’s paper, ‘No Home from Home’. We do not think that it goes far enough, but it contains some suggestions about how the Executive can, within the bounds of law, fund emergency accommodation and support for those client groups.

381. Mr Tony McQuillan (Council for the Homeless NI): I am speaking in my capacity as deputy chairperson of the Council for the Homeless, as opposed to my work in Shelter (NI) Ltd.

382. Chairperson, you asked about the list of names of organisations in clause 1. We feel strongly that district councils should be included in the list. They are part of the housing executive’s consultative round, and that is already covered in existing legislation, but their inclusion would go beyond that; it would allow for their involvement in issues concerning HMOs and regeneration. There is also the potential power of well-being, and so forth, in which they have an important role that should be considered.

383. Elsewhere in the Bill, there is a proposal, and rightly so, that other organisations should work with the housing executive in delivering services. However, we in the voluntary sector believe strongly that we are not simply a passive provider of services. In fact, as Ricky said, we are heavily involved through our engagement with statutory agencies. We often chaired meetings of subcommittees as part of the PSI process. Therefore, we would like relevant voluntary organisations to be included in the list and not just be passive recipients or providers of services.

384. In clause 1, the proposed paragraphs 6B(3) and 6B(4) refer to institutions, and they lump together various statutory organisations with voluntary and other organisations. To reinforce the point about the duty of statutory agencies to work with the Housing Executive, the legislative draftsman should separate them, because the same duty cannot be imposed on a voluntary or private organisation. It is simply a drafting error.

385. My colleague mentioned the Human Rights Commission’s report ‘No Home from Home’, and some of the issues were touched on earlier. Many councils already prepare welcome packs for migrant workers. Just because migrant workers are not eligible for Government support does not mean that they cannot come here. Many people are, rightly, entitled to be here and are, therefore, entitled to receive information. It is a bit of a no-brainer; there is no problem with providing advice and information. I accept that some people may be particular about who pays for that, but the public purse pays for it in some form anyway.

386. The Human Rights Commission’s report makes several recommendations. Some primary legislation from Westminster is required, but the commission makes suggestions as to what the Assembly can do too. I recommend that the Committee read that report. One suggestion is that there should be a pot of money. The proposal is to make that public money available to the Simon Community, the Churches, and all the other agencies, such as the Welcome Centre, who work with people who are not otherwise eligible for support from the public purse. I am not sure how that could be included.

387. Although there is nothing wrong with clause 3, it does not go far enough in examining the duties regarding people who are ineligible for housing assistance and who may be, for example, destitute. The Human Rights Commission is concerned about that situation. I recommend that the legislative draftsman either removes that clause or amends it. Ms Lo made that point during the previous presentation to the Committee.

388. Clause 4 concerns the powers to prescribe advice and assistance. I agree with what our colleagues said in their earlier presentation. We encourage the Department to adopt the model of the Scottish regulations from 2002 as a good-practice model. We would also like a timetable included to ensure delivery. Often, actions that are prescribed disappear into the distance. As for the detail, we want delivery to be uniform, and we want the information to be widely available and provided in appropriate languages and format.

389. Clause 5(2) proposes the insertion of supplementary provisions. Those refer to people who are trying to appeal against adverse decisions by the Housing Executive on their homelessness status. I understand that the intention is to break the duty on the Housing Executive to continue to provide temporary accommodation for someone it deems is not owed that duty. However, the clause, as drafted, also states that the Housing Executive can continue, at its discretion, to continue to support that temporary accommodation. That opens up the issue of consistency of application regarding information and advice, to which reference was made earlier.

390. In my experience, it is not good legislation to say, on the one hand, that something is a duty, and on the other hand, that it is a discretionary practice. That is just not sensible. One either drops the amendment or makes it a very clear prescription as to the exact circumstances in which the Housing Executive would be allowed to continue supporting somebody who has already been declined, and whether temporary accommodation should be allowed.

391. Clause 9, which deals with the abandonment of introductory tenancies, proposes the dropping of the word “secure": it appears in page 13, line 20 of the Bill. Although I think that that may well relate to introductory tenancies, and I understand perfectly that those are not secure tenancies, the clause relates to a wider group of what are regarded as matters that can define suitable accommodation. Was it the intention of the legislative draftsmen to narrow it down to just introductory tenancies, and that that is why the clause has been drafted in this way, or, does it have a wider impact, which is what I am concerned about? We do not want to lose any rights that people have over security of tenure and so on.

392. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. In your written submission, you welcome the changes to the definition of HMOs. Today, we heard others, including some members, express concerns about that. Will you elaborate on why you welcome those changes?

393. Ms Rowledge: It is mainly because we are stupid.

394. The Chairperson: That is a rare admission in this Building. [Laughter.]

395. Mr McQuillan: We are from the voluntary sector; we always tell the truth.

396. Ms Rowledge: This is not an area that we specialise in. We read the definition very much in the broad sense. We did have concerns, particularly about migrants with very large or extended families, and we felt that the new definition would give them more security and be better for them. I think that that may have been a misinterpretation. Normally, we do not tend to share responses within our sector. For example, when organisations are invited to jointly present evidence to Committees, we will share our responses afterwards but not beforehand. It was my fault, and I apologise.

397. The Chairperson: It was not a criticism; I wanted to see why you welcomed the changes.

398. Ms Rowledge: That is why.

399. The Chairperson: Fair enough.

400. Mr T McQuillan: The Housing Rights Service presentation got it spot on.

401. Ms Rowledge: We agree with them and trust them to know more about that aspect than we do.

402. The Chairperson: It was just in case you had a particular view. The Committee is all about recognising that, sometimes, there are different perspectives. Thank you for clarifying that.

403. Mr F McCann: I have a question about the definition of a HMO. There was some concern with the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 that enough time has elapsed to find out whether there were difficulties with that. Groups such as yours were already pointing up that the regulations were not strong enough to allow you to deal with those problems. Do you see this Bill as another option to try to strengthen the regulations?

404. Mr T McQuillan: It is a matter for the Committee to determine how it deals with the Department’s legislation. However, some issues, such as priority need, would have been very important to debate. In Scotland, the Government have agreed to take priority need out of the assessment by 2012, which will leave the homelessness tests as intentionality and eligibility: that area was worthy of examination and debate in relation to this legislation. At the moment, Scotland has diluted priority need in such a way that it is almost ineffective as a criterion: almost everybody has a priority need. Homelessness should not be about priority need, because that relates to the services that are required to prevent homelessness or help people not to be homeless. Priority need is about assessment for services, as opposed to status.

405. Therefore, if there were time, I would include those items in the Bill. Obviously, we do not want to hold up the legislative duty that is being placed on the Housing Executive to produce a homelessness strategy in the proper format. If that were to be delayed for 12 months or 24 months, then it would not work out. However, if one could include other provisions in the Bill, then there are certainly some that we would like to discuss.

406. Ms Rowledge: May I ask a question in order to clear up some confusion in my mind? The voluntary sector, as a whole, has strongly called for the mandatory registration of private landlords? Is Mr McCann saying that that could be added to the Bill? Does he feel that it has gone too far in the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 that it can, therefore, no longer be included at this stage? Alternatively, does he want to take a belt-and-braces approach?

407. Mr F McCann: Consultation has been ongoing and the results have yet to be released. I recall people saying that several pieces of legislation under the Private Tenancies Order 2006 were not strong enough to allow councils and other people to deal with certain difficulties. What I am saying is that that may not be picked up in the consultation on the private-rented sector and I am asking whether there a mechanism that you believe could be inserted in this Bill?

408. At the outset, most people were led to believe that this was simply a tidying-up exercise that would mop up certain issues. However, it might be years before we get back to this point. Should the Bill be used to deal with some of the problems that exist currently?

409. Mr T McQuillan: I do not know the mechanism for that. If one introduces something new, does one have to consult on it? Clearly, there are issues with the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006: it is not strong enough. One has to wait until certain criteria are met before one can act. If there is evidence that earlier action is needed, one should be able to do something instead of having to wait until late in the day.

410. Therefore, there are issues. However, councils would feel that they have the right to be consulted about these things and make contributions. The issue is what can be delivered within the Committee’s timetable. I do not want to take away your role, Mr Chairman, to decide on those matters.

411. The Chairperson: We expect legislation to be introduced off the back of consultation on the private-rented sector.

412. Mr T McQuillan: Many people, including our organisation, have sent rather long returns to the Department to try to make some of the points that you have mentioned, Mr McCann. Certainly, there could have been a wider debate on some issues. We were not given the opportunity until now.

413. The Chairperson: It is in the pipeline.

414. Mr F McCann: It will be interesting to see what comes out of the other end of the pipeline.

415. The Chairperson: That is correct. That is where the debate is.

416. Ms Lo: I have two questions. First, the PSI group has obviously done a tremendous amount of work to bring the situation to its current stage. Is there a mechanism by which the group can be sustained? For instance, could it scrutinise the strategy and hold people accountable?

417. Secondly, I have seen so many so-called interdepartmental strategies in which one lead Department gets other Departments to buy in and work with it. Obviously, the homelessness strategy will require that sort of joined-up working. How will we ensure that other Departments play ball?

418. Ms Rowledge: The PSI strategy group is due to report to the Minister. The final meeting of the group in its current incarnation will be on 29 September 2009. We received a letter from Barney McGahan putting forward three proposals for the way forward for PSI. He asked which of those membership options the group would be comfortable with. The voluntary sector has chosen the third option and asked for it to be strengthened slightly. That option is to have an overarching interdepartmental working group. It would not necessarily be called the PSI group any longer, but, ideally, it would comprise the same constituent groups. The group would have some kind of summit meeting biannually. A new action plan would also be developed.

419. The action plan could be rolled out through subgroups, which is the way that the PSI has worked to date: there is one main group and five subgroups, which have done a tremendous amount of work. That work was not just about policy, but was very practical work, such as coming up with operational ideas and the development of new actions. That group would then report to the two summits.

420. However, voluntary-sector members would need to see a mandated buy-in and some sort of Government lead, which, to date, has been done successfully by the Department for Social Development. That is why we see an inextricable link between the legislation and the homelessness strategy, the requirements placed on other Departments, and the building of the foundation of PSI. They are linked not just through the homelessness strategy, which is a duty of the Housing Executive at the housing end of things, but through bringing together all other government strategies to get an overview of where Departments’ responsibilities lie in regard to people who are, or who are at risk of becoming, homeless.

421. I cannot overemphasise my astonishment at how successful that has been. There are particular Departments that, for years, the voluntary sector had tried to bring to the table. Now, those Departments have said that they want this to continue. However, the only way that that can happen is if the Stormont Executive say that there has to be engagement. I think that this is the way to do that. We hope that PSI will, in some form, continue, but that it will have some kind of monitoring and evaluation role. That role would not just be in rolling out the homelessness strategy, but on the elements of the strategy that relate to people’s needs outside of housing needs.

422. It is a case of watch this space. I have a colleague in the Public Gallery who is from the Department, and I hope he is listening to this with eager anticipation. Under his auspices, I hope that the Department will seriously consider strengthening the link between the homelessness strategy and promoting social inclusion.

423. Ms Lo: I strongly support that. You set a precedent with the migrant workers subgroup and the PSI group on ethnic minorities. That group is still meeting, but, as the three years comes to an end, it is going into review.

424. Ms Rowledge: Yes.

425. Mr T McQuillan: That is why we support the Housing Rights Service’s suggestion to change the word “may" to something like “must" or “shall".

426. Ms Rowledge: We would like “must". [Laughter.]

427. The Chairperson: “Shall" is the appropriate word.

428. Mr T McQuillan: “Must" is much better though.

429. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your evidence. To recap: you agree to a three-year homelessness strategy basing particular emphasis on the partnered organisations listed in clause 1; relevant organisations being mandated, including the PSI steering group; a requirement for homelessness support for the destitute; a good practice guide for homelessness advice, and the enhancing of consistency of treatment for those appealing decisions.

430. Mr T McQuillan: We would like the word “secure" in clause 9 to be checked, and whether the draftsman intended that to relate to security of tenure or to have a wider impact.

431. The Chairperson: We can clarify that. Thank you very much, Ricky and Tony.

24 September 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Simon Hamilton
David Hilditch
Mickey Brady
Alex Easton
Jonathan Craig
Mary Bradley
Thomas Burns
Anna Lo
Caral Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

432. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome Peter O’Neill, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), Sorcha McKenna, an investigations worker, and Roisin Devlin, also an investigations worker. Members each have a copy of the executive summary and recommendations from the recently published report from the Human Rights Commission, entitled ‘No Home from Home: Homelessness for People with No or Limited Access to Public Funds’, as well as the commission’s submission on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I ask the witnesses to make a brief presentation to the Committee, after which members may wish to ask questions.

433. Mr Peter O’Neill (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): Thank you, Chairman. I hope that we will not be subjected to the interrogation that you faced on ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’ earlier today. Be gentle with us.

434. The Chairperson: I would not be so rude to a guest, although Mr Nolan might.

435. Mr P O’Neill: I thank the Committee for extending the invitation for us to attend this evidence session. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission recently published the investigation report that you mentioned, entitled ‘No Home from Home’. The investigation came about in response to the commission’s concern about the vulnerability of certain categories of non-UK nationals to destitution. The report examined the issues facing homeless non-UK nationals in Northern Ireland and the complex mix of European Union and domestic immigration laws that means that homelessness assistance is not available to non-UK nationals in a number of situations.

436. The report also considers the policy and practice of agencies such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the health and social care trusts and the Social Security Agency. Furthermore, ‘No Home from Home’ addresses the issues of domestic violence, racial intimidation, labour exploitation and asylum seeking. I am joined today by the co-authors of that report, commission investigators Roisin Devlin and Sorcha McKenna, who, on your invitation, are here to discuss possible amendments to the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

437. In light of our recent investigation, the focus today will be on strengthening the Bill to better protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society. To that end, my colleagues will contain their evidence to the first five clauses of the Bill. I also draw your attention to the relevant recommendations from our recent investigation report. I will now hand over to Sorcha McKenna, who will take you through clauses 1 to 3. She will then be followed by Roisin Devlin, who will speak about clauses 4 and 5 and the relevant recommendations from our investigation report.

438. Ms Sorcha McKenna (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): The commission welcomes the provision in clause 1 as a positive development, but recommends that the text be slightly amended. Rather than:

“The Executive may formulate and publish a homelessness strategy."

439. It should be changed to read:

“The Executive shall formulate and publish a homelessness strategy."

440. That would ensure that the language is consistent with the remainder of the clause and with the intention that the formulation of a homelessness strategy is a duty rather than a power.

441. Given the commission’s particular concerns in relation to homeless non-UK nationals, many of whom are ineligible for homelessness assistance, the remit of the strategy is particularly welcome, as it applies to persons in Northern Ireland without exclusions based on nationality or immigration status. The commission therefore recommends that the homelessness strategy should refer to all those at risk of homelessness or assessed as homeless in Northern Ireland.

442. Clause 2 relates to the duty of the Housing Executive to provide advice. The commission welcomes that as a positive measure. It requires the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to provide advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland. That ensures that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive can adopt a more proactive role in relation to homelessness. The commission notes that the advice is provided free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland, which can therefore include all individuals, regardless of nationality or immigration status. Again, that is particularly welcome given the concern for homeless non-UK nationals, as reported in the commission’s most recent investigation. The commission therefore recommends that the advice provided by the Housing Executive, or by any other person acting on the Housing Executive’s behalf under proposed new article 6D(1), is set out in guidance that is subject to appropriate consultation and review.

443. Clause 3 deals with eligibility for housing assistance and requires the Housing Executive to notify an individual of its decision and the reasons for its decision where the individual is found ineligible for housing assistance. The notice must be given in writing and applies to persons found ineligible due to their behaviour or their immigration status. The commission welcomes that provision and recommends that the notice be accompanied by written information on the applicant’s right to request a review and the right of appeal to the County Court, rights for which are proposed in clause 5. Furthermore, the commission recommends that the written information should refer to sources of support; for example, the contact details for relevant units in the Housing Executive and for those external organisations funded by the Housing Executive to provide advice.

444. The commission’s recent investigation found that there is a language barrier for some non-UK nationals living in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it recommends that the format and content of all correspondence should take account of the language needs of the applicant. For example, although it may not be possible to translate the reasons for a decision of ineligibility in every case, it may be feasible to include a standard statement in several languages or in the applicant’s first language, if known. Such a statement would explain how to make contact with the Housing Executive for further information, translation or interpretation assistance or any other help.

445. Clause 3 also deals with the changing of the term “applicant" to “person" in proposed new article 7A(5). The commission is concerned that by amending “applicant" to “person", an individual might be refused housing assistance under article 7 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 before they have become an applicant; that is, before they have submitted a full homelessness application, which would allow a proper inquiry into their circumstances. Therefore, the commission requests further clarification on the reasons for that proposed amendment to article 7. Once such clarification is available, the commission can come back with further information.

446. Ms Roisin Devlin (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): Clause 4 relates to the power of the Department to prescribe the form of advice and assistance that is given. The commission welcomes the Department having that power. During its investigation, the commission found that advice and assistance formed an important part of the Executive’s duty to homeless persons and that that advice and assistance may be the only support that ineligible non-UK nationals receive from the Housing Executive. Therefore, it is crucial that the advice and assistance is appropriate and thorough and directs ineligible individuals to other statutory bodies that may be able to offer support.

447. To strengthen the proposed amendment detailed in clause 4, the commission suggests that the wording could be changed from:

“advice and assistance of such type as may be prescribed by the Department",

to:

“advice and assistance of such type as shall be prescribed by the Department".

448. That would mean that there is a duty on the Department to prescribe the form of advice and assistance, rather than it simply having the power to do that.

449. The commission recommends that the form and content of the advice and assistance is stated in guidance and that either the Bill or, if more appropriate, the guidance, sets out the minimum standard of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive must provide. Drawing on its investigation findings, the commission is of the view that that is particularly important for applicants who are ineligible for homelessness assistance. For example, as a minimum, the Housing Executive should be required to refer ineligible applicants to the relevant health and social care trust so that they can be assessed as to whether they are entitled to assistance under the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 or under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.

450. The commission recommends that the form of advice and assistance should be subject to appropriate consultation and review. We also emphasise the need for the format and content of any correspondence, including advice and assistance, to take account of the needs of the applicant with regard to language and understanding.

451. Clause 5 relates to reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness. The commission welcomes clause 5, which introduces a statutory right of review of the Housing Executive’s decisions and the right of appeal to the County Court on points of law. In the course of its investigation, the commission found that relatively few non-UK nationalists had requested a review or appealed homelessness decisions. Therefore, the commission recommends that information about, and mechanisms for, review and appeal are accessible, particularly for persons who may be experiencing language barriers.

452. I will now highlight some of the relevant recommendations from ‘No Home from Home’, the commission’s investigation report. Some of the recommendations are relevant for inclusion in the homelessness strategy or in guidance. Others require legislative change.

453. One recommendation is that the Government should amend homelessness legislation so that people who sleep on the street and are without any other means to access welfare, benefits or accommodation are given priority need within the meaning of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. We believe that that is relevant to the Northern Ireland Assembly. We call for the development of a fund that can be accessed by relevant voluntary organisations that currently seek to help non-UK nationals by accommodating them or offering other support in circumstances in which they do not have access to public funds.

454. The development of the homelessness strategy and departmental guidance will be an important way to bring forward other recommendations from ‘No Home from Home’, including the recommendation that all Government agency staff should be familiar with when and how to refer a homeless non-UK national to the relevant health and social care trust for an assessment of his or her entitlement to assistance. Also, the Government agency should include in each letter a standard statement, translated into several languages, that explains the purpose and urgency of the letter and how to contact the Government agency for further information. In addition, Government agencies should assess the extent to which certain letters or parts thereof could be standardised and translated in advance.

455. The Government agencies should also develop, agree and effectively disseminate reliable inter-agency protocols. We have asked that those protocols identify any potential gaps in service provision and ensure that, in all circumstances, there is a referral route so that homeless non-UK nationals who are otherwise excluded from assistance can be assessed to establish whether any other form of support is available to them. Appropriate and formalised referral arrangements should be included and, in addition, the inter-agency protocols should outline the approach to be adopted during the daytime and after hours. Following on from that, the agency should produce an inter-agency guide for staff that outlines the options for assistance and referrals.

456. The main recommendation, as Committee members may be aware, is that, regardless of nationality or immigration status, no one should be allowed to fall into destitution. To realise that, we recommend that everyone should have access to appropriate emergency accommodation. We understand that immigration law is not in the Assembly’s legislative remit. Therefore, that recommendation is directed primarily at the Westminster Government. Nevertheless, the Northern Ireland Assembly has an important role in engaging with Westminster to bring about legislative change. The commission looks forward to working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Government in Westminster to bring forward all of its recommendations.

457. That concludes our evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. We thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute. We are happy to answer questions or provide further written clarification if required.

458. The Chairperson: Thank you for that useful presentation. Last week, in our discussion on the homelessness strategy, we asked to whom the “all" in Northern Ireland referred. We intend to seek clarification on that from the Department.

459. For the Committee’s benefit, can you map out your view on whether the advice aspect of the homelessness strategy — if it does mean all people of all nationalities — should kick in fairly quickly and that other, resource-heavy issues, such as providing accommodation, should come in later, as resources allow? Or, as you highlighted, Roisin, could doing so potentially clash with immigration law? First and foremost, should advice be provided? Is it, at least, a first step in the right direction?

460. Ms Devlin: We have said that the “all" in Northern Ireland should include everyone. Although immigration legislation imposes restrictions on who is entitled to homelessness assistance and welfare benefits, advice can be provided to individuals who are ineligible. Therefore, the extent to which people from abroad or those who are subject to immigration control are included in the strategy, or provided with advice and assistance, should not necessarily be affected.

461. Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you for your presentation. My question is about your comments on intentionality. Can you comment on the proposal from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders in relation to changing the interpretation of intentionality to exempt ex-offenders?

462. Ms Devlin: At this stage, we have not considered that in detail.

463. Ms McKenna: We are giving evidence today on the outcomes of our findings, but we could go back and consider those aspects and provide a written submission. Would that be acceptable?

464. The Chairperson: Yes; that would be fine.

465. Ms Lo: You are very welcome. This is a very timely report. I and a lot of other MLAs have been approached by non-nationals who want help, and we find it very difficult when we know that they have no access to public funds. That is in relation not only to housing but other issues such as domestic violence. If an organisation such as Women’s Aid has no access to public funds, it cannot take people in. I know that Women’s Aid does take people in, but it does so using its own funds. That is a voluntary organisation stretching its limited resources to give non-nationals refuge.

466. I support your suggestion of a fund from the Executive. Although it is difficult to talk to any Department about funds, such a fund is very much needed. There are precedents, such as the children’s fund, which is a pot of money that the voluntary sector can make use of. Organisations such as the Simon Community and Women’s Aid could have access to a fund so that they can have some means of helping non-nationals. As a civilised society, we cannot simply tell those people coming to our doors that we cannot do anything for them. That is what a lot of people have to say to non-nationals, who have to sleep rough in the street and cannot get access to doctors. It is simply not right in a society where we value human rights. I welcome the report and thank NIHRC for it.

467. Mr Brady: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am old enough to remember Peter O’Neill as a student.

468. Mr P O’Neill: The years are passing by.

469. Ms Ní Chuilín: But does he remember you, Mickey? [Laughter.]

470. The Chairperson: I am not sure who comes out of that worse. [Laughter.]

471. Mr Brady: One of the recommendations is that training should be provided. That is a huge gap in the system, which has been highlighted by the introduction of the employment and support allowance rapidly becoming a bit of a disaster. If staff of the Housing Executive, Social Security Agency and the social services are to receive human rights and anti-racism training, a co-ordinated approach should be taken. To do that would be a cost-saving exercise, and it would seem sensible. Is that something that could and should be done?

472. Ms McKenna: That is one of the cross-cutting agency recommendations that we have made. One of the issues that was apparent to us as we conducted the investigation was that agencies were not necessarily speaking to each other on matters that were of some relevance — at different levels — to all of them. That is something that could be brought forward as a strategic approach. We are intending to follow up on that by meeting the agencies individually, in the first instance, and we may also proceed with a round-table discussion with the three agencies to discuss how those cross-cutting recommendations could be brought forward. A co-ordinated approach to training to achieve efficiency savings is something that we will certainly bear in mind.

473. Mr Hilditch: Does the Commission have any estimate of the number of non-UK nationals seeking homelessness advice and support in Northern Ireland?

474. Ms Devlin: That question is difficult to answer. It may be that the statistics are not available or homeless people may not be presenting to Government agencies. During the investigation, we had access to case files, and voluntary organisations provided us with case studies, but we could only estimate that in any given year, the number of people is in the hundreds rather than the thousands. We have no firm figures.

475. Mr Hilditch: Your proposals include changes to Housing Executive staff training. The Housing Executive is a big organisation. Has any research been done on how that would be implemented? I have had no problems with the Housing Executive branch in my constituency; its staff have been very helpful, so I do not wish to be too critical of Housing Executive staff. However, is there any indication of the cost of, or timescale for, such staff training?

476. Ms McKenna: We will meet the agencies individually to devise an action plan for each recommendation. We are not prescriptive about how much should be spent on training or exactly how it should be conducted. Rather, we are concerned that training meets human rights standards and that the implications for people who are ineligible are understood. We will discuss with the agencies the details of how they can bring that forward.

477. The Chairperson: In your submission, you raised the issue of intentionality. What sort of people will benefit most from the removal of that provision?

478. Ms Devlin: In our submission, we referred to intentionality provisions in the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003. We drew members’ attention to those provisions because in May this year, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognised them as one way to progressively realise the right to housing. We understand that it may not be appropriate for that issue to be addressed through the Housing (Amendment) Bill, but we wish to draw it to members’ attention as a possible method for progressively realising the right to housing. Gradually removing the intentionality provisions would allow more people to access homelessness services, but how the right to housing might be implemented in Northern Ireland would have to be consulted on.

479. Ms Ní Chuilín: While intentionality is being assessed, would you support the provision of emergency accommodation?

480. Ms McKenna: We have not made a specific recommendation to that effect but, when entitlement to housing is being assessed, there is a provision that the Housing Executive can provide temporary accommodation.

481. Ms Ní Chuilín: There is a difference between can, may and shall.

482. Ms McKenna: Yes, and that is partly why we want clarity in the guidance and why we want staff to be trained to recognise that it is a possibility and ensure that the matter is investigated further so that temporary accommodation is provided, rather than have people told offhand that it is not available.

483. The Chairperson: Thank you for your evidence, time and submission. While you are here, in case there are any queries that members wish to raise, I will recap your evidence and distil it down as accurately as I can. You are suggesting extending homelessness support to all applicants; improving accessibility to advice and decision outcomes for non-UK nationals; setting out a minimum standard for advice and assistance; and removing the Housing Executive’s requirement to determine whether applicants are intentionally homeless. You also mentioned developing an accommodation fund for non-UK nationals, developing relevant training and inter-agency protocols for Housing Executive staff, and avoiding destitution for non-UK nationals.

484. Providing that you are content with that summary, and if members do not have anything further to add at this stage, I will conclude this session. Thank you for you evidence.

485. Are members content that we ask the Committee Clerk to seek the Department’s and the Housing Executive’s views on the issues that have been raised? It will help us in our deliberations.

Members indicated assent.

486. The Chairperson: We will now move to our second evidence session today on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Joining us are representatives from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO); Pat Conway, the director of services, Síle McLean, the services manager, and Barry McMullan, senior practitioner. You are all very welcome. As with previous evidence sessions, you may wish to outline some salient points in the submission that you have made, and members may then wish to ask questions.

487. Mr Pat Conway (Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders): I thank the Committee for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I will give a very brief overview of what NIACRO does. It is a non-governmental organisation that works to reduce crime and the impact of crime on people and communities. That means that our work is focused on making a unique contribution to the development of a society in which the needs and rights of everyone, including offenders, are respected equally. We work with children and young people who offend, with offenders and ex-prisoners and with prisoners’ families and their children.

488. As a key voluntary organisation working in the criminal justice system, NIACRO believes that it has an important role to play in developing public policy through evaluating its work, contributing to consultations and regularly meeting senior policymakers to report on its experiences.

489. The Housing (Amendment) Bill should be seen in the context of NIACRO’s framework for resettlement. NIACRO operates and constructs its services through what are called pathways within the criminal justice system. We argue that issues such as accommodation; finance; training and employment; health, physical as well as mental; intervention programmes to address behaviour such as addictions and violence, and welcoming social networks all have to be addressed if there is to be an effective resettlement process with individuals. If accommodation issues are not addressed, it is unlikely that the remaining pathways will be effective. That means that it is more likely that people will reoffend and return to the courts and the prison system.

490. We welcome the homelessness strategy and duty of the Housing Executive to provide information. As our evidence states, we also agree with the identified Departments being given responsibility for taking the strategy into account when undertaking their functions. However, we would like to see the Prison Service added to the list, and we also believe that each Department should publish how it intends to meet the aims of the strategy in its planning, and account for outcomes through its reporting mechanisms.

491. Part of the work carried out with prisoners, in particular, requires a protocol, which is discussed in our evidence. A protocol between the Housing Executive and the Prison Service exists, but we would like it to be featured in the Bill, and that a review of its operational success take place annually. I will hand over to Síle McLean, who is responsible for NIACRO’s resettlement projects.

492. Ms Síle McLean (Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders): NIACRO gives advice to more than 900 prisoners every year. It is particularly difficult for people who have been through the prison system and who find that they are not entitled to be housed by the Housing Executive to access accommodation, even in hostels. I emphasise that accommodation underpins any resettlement or social integration work. Therefore, when there are accommodation difficulties, none of the other work that needs to be done can be effective. That is important to note.

493. We are particularly concerned about the vulnerability of women in the criminal justice system. Through the draft women-offenders’ strategy, we recommend that the criminal justice sector recognises women’s range of accommodation needs. We are concerned about women who cannot get bail because of the lack of entitlement to access publicly-funded accommodation. Therefore, people get caught up in the criminal justice system because they cannot get suitable accommodation during their bail period.

494. Of critical concern to us are 16 year olds and 17 year olds, who are not catered for under the homelessness legislation. The group falls under the remit of health and social services and the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which gives health and social services trusts responsibility for accommodating young people in particular circumstances. In practice, we have found that that presents difficulties when young people have been engaged in offending behaviour and may have come under threat in the community. Whilst we recognise the rights and responsibilities of parents, extreme difficulties can be placed on families when they are, perhaps, expected to move from an area because of those difficulties and because of the absence of an alternative strategy from health and social care trusts to address the behaviours of those young people who, during that period, are beyond their parents’ control.

495. We are also concerned about people with mental-health difficulties, who are, as I am sure the Committee will recognise, disproportionately represented amongst the offending population. The criminal justice sector has highlighted a need as regards people with personality disorders and less-serious mental-health difficulties. Suitable accommodation, such as support units where delivery of mental-health services has primacy, would be an investment in resettlement, recovery and public protection. That needs to be taken on board.

496. We also want to raise the issue of intimidation. NIACRO, through its Base 2 project, deals with in excess of 900 referrals of people every year who present as homeless due to intimidation. Our investigations demonstrate that only one third of that number is actually at physical risk in the community. Nonetheless, those people are homeless. Often, they will get a response from the Housing Executive. However, others are considered ineligible because of their offending behaviour. For them, accessing suitable accommodation becomes very difficult. We recognise that, occasionally, a conviction can be related directly to a tenancy; when a house has been used in an offence. Those are different circumstances.

497. We also want to mention our concern about families who are victims of intimidation in an area. Although, under homelessness legislation, they may be entitled to be classed as a priority; where one parent is working, they would have to pay for what can be quite expensive hostel accommodation, causing unnecessary hardship in the circumstances. That is something that needs to be addressed. Fundamentally, our argument is that excluding people from accommodation is not a solution to offending behaviour. I will ask Barry to conclude.

498. Mr Barry McMullan (Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders): I will begin by saying that we are broadly supportive of the strategy, as it works to alleviate homelessness and the causes of homelessness. I will make a few suggestions about how the strategy could be tweaked a bit.

499. Under the 2006 Housing Executive guidance, it follows that if an individual approaches the Housing Executive and applies for accommodation 12 months after committing an offence, the Housing Executive would regard the offence as being spent when assessing or determining eligibility criteria and intentionality. However, if the offence was related to behaviour that would enable the Housing Executive to obtain a possession order under grounds 2 and 3 of schedule 3, which relate to article 29 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, it may still regard the individual as intentionally homeless and ineligible for assistance.

500. NIACRO would like the eligibility criteria, as well as considering the time that has elapsed since the offence occurred, to take account of other factors that may be pertinent, such as how the offender has addressed their past offending behaviour; have they completed anger management courses, alcohol management courses, or have they overcome addictions? The criteria should also include factors in relation to the risk in the community. If the individual is engaged with NIACRO, for example, or with the Probation Board under a specific supervision order, the risk should be lower.

501. There is a range of floating support schemes in the community, like Extern, and NIACRO also offers a floating support service, which helps the offender address the issues that led them to offend and to fall out with their neighbours in the first place. As well as helping the person deal with personal issues, the schemes also help to mediate with the community in which they live.

502. Another issue that I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to relates specifically to clause 5 of the Bill, which provides for the insertion of articles 11A(3) and 11C(2) into the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. Both articles deal with the timeframes for requesting a review and the right of appeal to a County Court. We recommend that the period be increased to one calendar month in each instance, as is the case in social security law and housing benefit law. That would give the applicant time to access assistance and guidance with a review or an appeal. As members are probably well aware, the advice sector is under a lot of pressure at the moment. Trying to get an appointment at a citizens advice bureau office, for example, can be very difficult. If the timeframes were extended to one calendar month, that would allow for greater access to professional assistance and guidance.

503. Finally, NIACRO would like rent guarantee schemes to be referenced in the Bill. They are very important but are few on the ground and are hard to access. We suggest that the homelessness strategy considers resourcing rent deposit or rent guarantee schemes to allow access to the private-rented sector by those who are homeless and who cannot access, or are excluded from, the social-rented housing sector.

504. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. I do not want to steal anyone’s thunder on intentionality, however, the suggestion is that public policy is increasing the risk of offenders who have been released from prison reoffending is frightening. You are saying that that is happening or could happen, but do you have any estimates of the numbers of former prisoners who reoffend after being homeless in such circumstances and the category that those offenders belong to? Do you have any statistical evidence on that?

505. Ms McLean: We do not have statistical evidence as such. However, we do have anecdotal evidence and we are providing services to people who have not been able to access accommodation. Our perspective is that the risk to the public and the risk of reoffending would be significantly reduced were suitable accommodation provided for these people.

506. Mr Conway: There are published rates of recidivism around the prison service. The number of people who go back into prison is quite high. I would need to check it, but it is around 40% to 50% of the population of adult offenders. The figure is lower than the GB rate for reasons to do with family connections and the closeness of society here. However, the figure for Hydebank Wood prison is significantly higher; it is above 65%. If those statistics are extrapolated, it can be said that the rate of recidivism is quite high; the Prison Service itself would say that it is unacceptably high.

507. The Chairperson: I appreciate the point, and I understand it. The argument is sensible and logical. I can see how, in many circumstances, it may be a negative factor for many individuals who come out of prison and want to rebuild their lives. However, there may be other factors in the reoffending rate, and, if the Committee were to make the argument, it would be useful for us to have more than anecdotal evidence. We need to have something more watertight to suggest that this is happening and that it is a primary or significant factor in reoffending. Although I understand the point being made, the argument would be stronger with that evidence.

508. Mr Conway: We could research those figures fairly quickly and get back to you.

509. The Chairperson: That would be useful. It would help the argument that you are making.

510. Mr Craig: I want to explore the point about intentionality further. We need the figures that you mentioned, because it is an understatement to say that this is a political hot potato. What brings you to the conclusion that somebody coming out of prison should automatically be entitled to go on to the housing list and receive points for being homeless? Let us face it; there are thousands of people who never broke the law and cannot get on to the list. What brings you to the conclusion that ex-offenders should get a leg-up over people who did not break the law?

511. Mr Conway: There are several responses to that. First, we believe that everybody has the right to be housed. Secondly, a judge does not sentence somebody to prison and add homelessness to the punishment. Thirdly, there is a cost to society if homelessness and resettlement, in their broadest terms, are not addressed. If we assume that the devolution of criminal justice, particularly prisons, will go ahead, that cost will become much more apparent to Assembly Members. Perhaps that will sharpen the focus on the purpose of prison and its effect, particularly when it comes to recidivism and the implementation of resettlement programmes. For those reasons, we argue that homelessness is at the core of resettlement — and I talked about the pathways previously. If an individual’s housing issues are not addressed, it is unlikely that he or she will stop reoffending. It is likely that they will continue to reoffend and end up back in prison, which has a cost for society in general.

512. Mr Craig: It is one thing to say that, but we need some evidence to back it up. I do not dispute what you are saying about the cost of reoffending, but we, as politicians, need some evidence of that. However, your argument is logical.

513. Mr Conway: It is an argument that is accepted by the Home Office. The problem is that not much research has been carried over to this jurisdiction, probably because of its size and the fact that other matters have dominated the political landscape. We can obtain Home Office-based research that supports the logic of our proposal.

514. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. My point follows on from a question that I asked following the previous presentation. I am aware of the great work that Barry McMullan has done and continues to do in giving people information, etc. The difficulty is that when people leave prison they are faced with the system. Regardless of how much information and advice they receive, they still face that situation.

515. I found it interesting that you said that people who contact support services within 72 hours of leaving prison are more likely to reintegrate into society, and so forth. I wonder whether there has been contact with the statutory agencies to improve the level of advice and support services that should be in place. You can advise people, but when they become involved with the statutory agencies, they are, in a sense, out of your hands. The improvement of advice and support would, therefore, be a sensible approach. If it means that people would not reoffend and that they would better reintegrate into society, it is worth that extra investment, because it would lead to savings in the long term.

516. Mr Conway: We are not arguing for extra investment per se. The Human Rights Commission references the cross-cutting element and the importance of joined-up departmental action. If that were to happen, our argument is that a reduction in the rates of offending and recidivism would be more likely. In our experience, a joined-up way of operationalising policy is still found wanting and varies in extent.

517. As soon as the term “offender" is used, everyone thinks of criminal justice. As that is currently the responsibility of the NIO and, in future, will be the responsibility of the Ministry of justice, the perception remains that it is their problem. Undoubtedly, improvements have been made in the past 10 to 15 years, and there is now greater acceptance. We applaud the Housing Executive, for example, for having addressed the issue head-on. It is sympathetic to our work and, indeed, funds some of it. Other Departments must be more involved to effect the entire resettlement project. Otherwise, you may expect the rate of crime and offending to remain fairly constant.

518. Mr Brady: People who come out of prison will go to different parts of the North. When the gate closes behind them, are they left to their own devices? Obviously, a support and advice service is available inside the prison. However, when people leave prison, they could be going anywhere; back into their own communities. Before someone leaves prison, is there much contact between the prison advice services and those in the area into which the person is likely to go?

519. Ms McLean: Our advice service that operates in the prison continues post-release. However, we recognise that the resettlement support that is required is very much under-resourced. Organisations such as ours are committed to those bridging services. However, we often find difficulty in maintaining and sustaining the necessary resources.

520. Mr Brady: I will conclude by saying that I believe that local social security offices, for example, are under-resourced anyway. If they had more staff, they could more easily deal with any extra pressure because there will not be huge numbers of people leaving prison at one time. It is a general problem. Housing Executive offices are under-resourced and under pressure. That situation prevails across the board. It should be looked at in the round. It does not just apply to people who have left prison; it applies to claimants as well.

521. Ms Ní Chuilín: I am sure that you listened to the other presentations. One of the key themes that emerged from them was the need for an inter-agency protocol. I understand from your comments that you would support such a protocol, particularly in order to try to take a more holistic approach to services for people who want to access housing, regardless of who they are.

522. Do you believe that when the Bill is implemented, groups such as NIACRO should have a statutory right to be consulted? I understand your point with regard to evidence. However, we need to see evidence in order for us to make a case. We cannot secure resources on logic alone. I know that you are aware of that.

523. In your comments about mental health, you mentioned personality disorders and the need for specialised units. That could be dealt with by a couple of different Departments. Very few diagnoses of personality disorders are made in prisons, particularly in Hydebank Wood. It fits in with the Bamford review’s recommendations. I suggest that when that evidence is obtained, you forward it to relevant Departments. My main question is whether you believe that you should be involved in consultation on inter-agency protocols as a statutory right, rather than that being a matter for Departments to decide.

524. Mr Conway: Of course, we would like to be consulted at every stage on any new services or legislation that is proposed. The Prison Service has signed off a set of protocols for PBNI, NIACRO and the Housing Executive. They are a tight and comprehensive set of protocols. I am not sure whether the Committee is aware of them. I have a copy here.

525. Our concern is that the implementation of the protocols and trying to ensure that there is seamless transition from prison into the community will be only good intentions. That is why the initial 72 hours are so important. Essentially, if we ensure that an individual were plugged into all services and has received all the elements of the pathways that I have described earlier, it is more likely that his or her offending behaviour will be reduced. That is the key issue: ultimately, what people should be concerned about is the reduction of offending behaviour.

526. The Chairperson: I will summarise the evidence, and members can seek clarity or express any views that they may have. You are suggesting that there should be a requirement for the Housing Executive to put in place connecting services across the board for ex-offenders; a requirement for the homelessness strategy to set out clear lines of responsibility, particularly for those aged 16 to 17, and to provide better accommodation options for women and the mentally ill; the increasing of appeal timescales for appeals relating to homelessness decisions and evictions from introductory tenancies; the removal of the requirement for the Housing Executive to investigate whether an applicant is intentionally homeless; consideration of other factors by the Housing Executive in respect of spent convictions; and a rent-guarantee scheme.

527. Mr Conway: We also recommend that the Prison Service should be included in the list under proposed new article 6A(5).

528. Ms Lo: Did you mention women?

529. The Chairperson: Yes; I would not leave women out. [Laughter.]

530. Thank you for your evidence. Do members agree that we should seek the Department’s view on that evidence?

Members indicated assent.

531. The Chairperson: We will move on to our final evidence session, with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Before us are Evelyn Collins and Patrice Hardy. It is the first occasion that the Equality Commission has been before the Committee and you are both very welcome. Included in the Committee papers are a note from the Committee Clerk and a submission from the Equality Commission. I invite you to make a brief presentation, after which members may ask questions.

532. Ms Evelyn Collins (Equality Commission NI): Thank you very much. We welcome the opportunity to present our evidence to the Committee, particularly as it is our first time here. I apologise on behalf of our chief commissioner, Bob Collins. He was looking forward to being here today; however, after struggling with a bad bug for the last few days, he finally succumbed and is at home in bed.

533. The Chairperson: He is excused on this occasion.

534. Ms Collins: I hope that we will have another occasion to come back and talk to the Committee about the Housing (Amendment) Bill and other issues. I am pleased to say that I am joined by Patrice Hardy, our director of policy. You all know the commission’s role. It is an independent public body established under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, with specific powers and duties under the range of anti-discrimination legislation that exists here and for the good relations and equality duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the disability duties under the Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

535. Our brief response to the Committee stated that we welcome many of the changes proposed in the Housing (Amendment) Bill. We recognise that it is designed to enhance the existing legal framework in a number of areas, including homelessness.

536. Our letter to the Committee sets out what we see as some of the key issues relating to housing generally. The Equality Commission published a statement on key inequalities at the end of 2007, setting out its view that housing is a basic human need that provides the foundation for family and community life and highlighting the fact that there are pockets of deprivation in Northern Ireland in which people experience severe housing need, homelessness and poor housing. That document recognised that it was important that policymakers consider the impact of housing policy and practice on equality. That publication, and our letter to the Committee, noted the statistics showing an increase in the number of people presenting as homeless, including older people, and particular issues with single men in respect of homelessness.

537. The substantive part of our submission to the Committee commented only on two clauses. The Equality Commission welcomes clause 1, the requirement for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy every five years. We recommend that, in addition to those bodies explicitly mentioned in the Bill as being required to assist the Housing Executive in doing that work — the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being and the Regional Health and Social Care Board — it would be of benefit to have explicit reference in the Bill to all local councils, both existing and proposed, and all Departments, not only those explicitly included in the list of bodies that have to take account of the homelessness strategy.

538. You are aware that local councils will be required to lead a community planning process and that statutory agencies will be required to work with them on such plans. Working to address homelessness in local areas may well be part of that process. We see merit in the Committee considering the possibility of explicitly mentioning all local councils and all Departments.

539. Given the cross-cutting nature of some of the issues that will need to be considered in respect of homelessness and the existence of other Government strategies — such as Lifetime Opportunities, for example, which is aimed at the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations, and others aimed at tackling social exclusion — the Equality Commission believes that it would be beneficial if the Bill were explicit about the importance of a cross-cutting approach to dealing with those issues and the need to ensure that such an approach is taken.

540. We also recommend that the Bill be amended to explicitly mention Travellers on a number of grounds. First, there should be a requirement on authorities to provide culturally sensitive accommodation to Travellers who are presenting as homeless. Secondly, the strategy that the Housing Executive draws up should explicitly address homelessness in the Travelling community.

541. In our letter we drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that, in June this year, the Equality Commission published a report outlining minimum standards for Traveller accommodation. That report looked generally at issues such as analysis of the law on international standards, current policies on Traveller accommodation provision and analysis of current provision, and it also looked at wider issues in relation to good relations and racism. We wanted to draw that to the Committee’s attention as part of the general information that is available about issues relating to housing, accommodation and homelessness, and we wanted to make some explicit reference to Travellers in relation to clause 1.

542. We also commented on clause 10, which deals with antisocial behaviour. We welcome the provision in the Bill to ensure that the Housing Executive consults on and prepares a code of practice on the issue. We thought that the Committee should give consideration to ensuring that that does not just cover the Housing Executive and its properties but that all social landlords should have a consistency of approach to dealing with antisocial behaviour in Northern Ireland. We thought that it was important to bring that to your attention and to recommend that the Bill should explicitly place a statutory requirement on the Housing Executive to fully consult all those working in the area when developing, amending and publishing its policies and procedures on antisocial behaviour.

543. We also made a recommendation that, when it comes to the implementation of the provisions, the Housing Executive should be screening and conducting its work in that area in line with its equality scheme commitments.

544. That is a summary of our letter to the Committee. We have also had some recent discussions with the Department about its work on its equality impact assessment. It might be useful for Patrice to outline that for you, and we will then be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

545. Ms Patrice Hardy (Equality Commission for Northern Ireland): As Evelyn has noted, this final point is not in our written submission. In preparing our written submission and reviewing documentation, it came to the Commission’s attention that the Department had screened out the Bill and that, therefore, it would not necessarily have been required to undertake an equality impact assessment (EQIA). However, the Department decided to go ahead with an equality impact assessment. Although the Commission has not provided written feedback, we feel that it is important to draw to the Committee’s attention that the EQIA report, as it stands, would not comply with the guidelines that the Equality Commission sets out for undertaking an equality impact assessment. We had meetings recently with Department officials to discuss those issues and communicated with them that we would be raising the matter today and would be sending a letter to the Department and continuing to work with it — with the good working relationship that we have — to move forward.

546. The Chairperson: I will begin by picking up on that final point. What is the position of an equality impact assessment that does not meet the required standard, if, at the first stage, it was screened out by the Department? The Department deemed that an assessment was not appropriate, went ahead and carried one out, but did so to an insufficient standard. Can you give us your view on that?

547. Ms Hardy: The first point to make is that the Commission has not seen the screening document. As a result of the meeting, we have asked for a copy of that document, which will hopefully be forwarded to us. It is important for us to say that we are not commenting on the decision that has been taken. Having said that, if the Department had decided to undertake an EQIA but not to publish or to undertake it in line with its equality scheme commitments to do so in accordance with the Equality Commission guidance, that possibly misleads stakeholders and the Committee about the extent to which an EQIA has been done. That is perhaps an issue for internal consideration.

548. The Chairperson: I appreciate that. It is certainly interesting.

549. Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you for your comments. My point is loosely related to the Housing (Amendment) Bill. In relation to the strategic guidelines on housing, Department officials told the Committee that it is moving ring-fencing for need. If that is successful and is based on a full EQIA, it will certainly help the matter of homelessness. How will the Department, robustly though an EQIA, substantiate the guidelines outlined in the Housing (Amendment) Bill and any other pieces of guidance or support that will help people who are on the housing waiting list and are particularly vulnerable to becoming homeless? Is the Commission aware of that?

550. Ms Hardy: I am not aware of the policy decision that you referred to. Certainly, one of the Department’s commitments is that the Equality Commission should be informed of screening decisions. I cannot provide an answer on whether we have been informed of that particular one; we could come back to the Committee on that.

551. Ms Collins: As Patrice said, staff had a meeting late last week with Department officials and there will be continuing discussion on the work that the Department is doing on it section 75 duties. We can raise that matter with them if it has not already been raised with us.

552. Ms Lo: Thank you for coming; you are very welcome. I endorse your call to include all the local councils in the homelessness strategy; that is important. You highlighted the need for the consideration of the needs of Travellers in that strategy, and that is particularly important given that local councils are going to have a lot more say in matters such as planning. However, I am not sure about your rationale in calling for all Departments to be involved in the strategy. When the promoting social inclusion working group considered the need for a homeless strategy, I do not think that its proposal was that that should cross all Departments. There are other strategies dealing with matters such as children and poverty that are cross-departmental. Can you explain a bit more about that?

553. Ms Collins: It was for the avoidance of doubt, because there are so many cross-cutting strategies, including one on racial equality. Given that Travellers have protection under the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, we thought that there was merit in our suggestion.

554. Ms Lo: I support that.

555. Ms Collins: Also, given that there is discussion about the number of Departments that there should be, it was thought that if the Bill explicitly referred to all Departments, there would be no need to change the legislation as Departments change. It is a suggestion for the Committee to consider.

556. Mr Craig: I am not often intrigued by the Equality Commission and what it has said, but I am certainly intrigued this time.

557. The Chairperson: We will take a note of the date and time.

558. Mr Craig: You said that the Equality Commission wants the legislation to require authorities to provide “culturally sensitive accommodation" for Traveller households. You have really got me intrigued. What exactly do you mean by “culturally sensitive accommodation"? By “authorities", do you mean the Housing Executive or the new local councils? I am particularly intrigued by the phrase “culturally sensitive". I would not like to think that the Equality Commission is saying that we should provide something different for any group in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I am just taking it up wrong. It looks as if you are asking us to treat Travellers differently from others.

559. Ms Hardy: That is an extract from the report that Evelyn mentioned earlier, which outlined the minimum standards for Traveller accommodation. The phrase “culturally sensitive" makes reference to a way of life. It means that bricks-and-mortar accommodation should not necessarily be provided to Travellers. Whatever accommodation is provided should be appropriate and should have the appropriate services. The phrase “culturally sensitive" refers to Travellers having a way of life that may be transient and to the fact that it may not be appropriate to provide them with the type accommodation that the settled community would be provided with.

560. Ms Collins: Our letter highlights article 35 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, which allows for special needs to be addressed in respect of specific racial groups where appropriate in the provision of services, or, in particular, in relation to welfare. There is legislative coverage, and our recommendation is aimed at ensuring that the Bill complies with other legislation.

561. Mr Craig: So the type of accommodation must suit the cultural group? That is interesting.

562. Ms Collins: As Patrice said, it is about recognising that many Travellers have a nomadic way of life, so simply replicating what is there for everybody else may not be appropriate. I am happy to provide Committee members with a copy of the Equality Commission’s report, which considers the international provisions and standards for groups that are recognised as having different needs.

563. Mr Craig: It would certainly do no harm to have that report. What are your views on who should implement that policy?

564. Ms Collins: Our recommendation is that, when developing its homelessness strategy, the Housing Executive should ensure that that covers the needs of all groups, including Travellers, who are specifically referred to as having protection under article 35 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.

565. Mr Craig: Therefore, you would be happy enough for that authority to stay with the Housing Executive.

566. Mr Easton: I seek clarification on my colleague’s point. Are you saying that, if someone in the Travelling community is homeless, they should be provided with a caravan with wheels in which they can run around the country? Is that what you are saying?

567. Ms Collins: It is not as explicit as that. The Commission’s recommendation is that the development of a homelessness strategy should take into account the fact that Travellers have different needs that potentially have to be addressed. Our recommendation is that that should be part of the strategy, not that there should be one particular type of provision or another.

568. Mr Easton: But it could mean that.

569. Ms Collins: Yes.

570. Mr Easton: Is what you are suggesting not open to wide abuse in that community? Someone who is living in a caravan with too many people in it could say that they are homeless. Every Traveller who is living in a caravan with one person too many could claim for a caravan. It is open to huge abuse and, to my mind, what you are suggesting is crazy.

571. Ms Collins: It is a matter for the Committee to consider how it wants to make recommendations on the Bill. We have no evidence that such a recommendation would lead to abuse. Our recommendation is that it should be considered as a part of the strategy in the context of the data that was available from the Department for Social Development. In its equality impact assessment, it was clear that some Irish Travellers are presenting as homeless; the numbers are specified in the EQIA. However, we have no evidence to suggest that such a proposal would be open to abuse.

572. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. As someone who has worked closely with Traveller families in the past and who continues to do so, I think that the main abuse in the past has been the lack of provision of sites and so on for them. When sites were provided, the conditions were absolutely dreadful. Having said that, in our area, the vast majority of Travellers are now settled in the community and are more than happy. Occasionally, families do come into communities, but in answer to the question about caravans, that is no longer an issue in our area. Some issues remain around halting sites, and perhaps that is what you meant by “culturally sensitive". There are a few Travellers who still want to travel. In our area that is not the case; they have settled throughout, in both rural and urban areas. Is my interpretation of what you meant correct?

573. Ms Collins: The recommendation comes from the report that looked at Traveller accommodation and addressing Traveller’s overall accommodation needs, not particularly in relation to homelessness. Clearly, there is some very good provision in Northern Ireland now. However, there are issues around the under-supply of appropriate provision; temporary sites being used on a permanent basis, de facto, if not by design; and planning and delays in some areas. The report that was produced canvasses all of those issues. You are right.

574. Mr Brady: We no longer have any sites in our area, whereas previously we had one. It was closed down and is in the process of being sold for development. That is not an issue for us, but it may be in other areas to a greater extent. I am not sure about that.

575. Mr Craig: I want to come back on a point, because I feel that there is a contradiction. The Minister is very fond of her shared future strategy. I cannot get into my head how this fits with a shared future strategy, the whole idea of which is to integrate different communities into one housing area. How does providing culturally sensitive accommodation fit in with the shared future strategy?

576. Ms Collins: I go back to my point that there is legislative provision for particular needs to be addressed. A shared future in respect of accommodation is part of the overall departmental strategy, but I do not see that as necessarily excluding the consideration of specific and culturally appropriate accommodation for Travellers.

577. Mr Craig: Yes, but if you are providing something that is specific to someone’s needs, how do you integrate that into overall society, as seems to have been achieved in Mickey’s area? It sounds as though it is a contradiction.

578. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is done for disability groups and other groups with special needs.

579. Mr Craig: It is about modifying existing housing to suit people’s needs. It is not about providing them with something completely different.

580. The Chairperson: Let us refocus here, members.

581. Mrs M Bradley: I live in an area in which we have had Travellers for a number of years. I remember the time when councils were responsible for the housing of those Travellers, and sites were built in Derry. I think that the first site for Travellers in Northern Ireland was opened in Derry. People are still living at that site, in built accommodation. Previously, it comprised small units which gave people a cooking area, a toilet and a wash area. They also had space for their caravans. There were no problems.

582. We must remember that one size does not fit all. I do not see that as a problem for the Minister’s shared future strategy. The Travellers who live in my area, which is the Shantallow in Derry, are part of the communities; as are their children. We now have on-site built housing as well — a housing scheme that the Minister opened some months ago in Shantallow — and it is absolutely marvellous for the Traveller families. It is a good thing to have them move into houses. It takes time for them to make their minds up to do so, because, as noted in their name, they are people who want to travel. However, a lot of them have taken the opportunity to live in homes, and their children — thank God — can get to school and everything else. It is fantastic. They do live with the community as well. You have to make the effort to get people settled and it takes time, but the effort has been worth it.

583. You referred to councils, but I do not think that you mean for councils to take the full responsibility for Travellers again.

584. Ms E Collins: No, it was a general recommendation regarding the list that is included in the Bill about whom the Executive should consult; it should consult councils.

585. Mrs M Bradley: Travellers have benefited greatly from the Housing Executive taking over their situation from councils.

586. Ms E Collins: Our recommendation in relation to that is not solely about Travellers; it is about looking at —

587. Mrs M Bradley: It is difficult for councillors who do not have Travellers in their areas to understand them. You need to have such people in your area, and we have had them in Derry for years and —

588. Mr Craig: We have them as well.

589. Mrs M Bradley: We have no complaints about them.

590. Ms Lo: A shared future is an aspiration that we should all work towards, but it does not mean forcing people together. We have not done that: 98% of our public housing is still on one side or the other. It is unfair to use the argument that Travellers need to assimilate themselves to be with the wider community. It is up to people. Their nomadic way of life is their cultural norm; we have to respect that and not force them into settled communities.

591. Mrs M Bradley: Yes, that is right; you have to work with them and coax them along.

592. The Chairperson: While you are still here, I will recap on your evidence and ask Members whether they want to express any further views, though we have heard one, in particular, quite a lot. You are calling for a statutory requirement for councils and all Government Departments to take account of the homelessness strategy; for suitable accommodation for Travellers; for the Department to consult on a code of practice for antisocial behaviour policies for all social landlords, and for the Housing Executive to consult on the production of the homelessness strategy. I think that that is a fair summary.

593. On the issue of antisocial behaviour policies, has the Equality Commission looked at the Housing Executive’s antisocial behaviour policy, or that of any of the registered housing associations?

594. Ms Collins: Not personally, and not recently, but the Equality Commission is aware of what the Housing Executive is doing in the area. Our comments in this context were in relation to the provisions in the Bill, and the need to make something explicit in the Bill.

595. The Chairperson: Does any member wish to make any further comment on that evidence? Evelyn and Patrice, thank you very much.

596. Ms Collins: Thank you very much; I am glad that we have started a discussion. I enjoyed it, and hope that you will invite us back at another appropriate opportunity when considering things.

597. The Chairperson: Are members content to agree that we seek the Department’s views on the evidence that has been raised?

598. Members indicated assent.

599. The Chairperson: Perhaps we should seek clarity on the situation with regard to the equality impact assessment, including perhaps seeking the screening document, and explicitly asking if the strategic guideline consultation complies with the Equality Commission’s own guidelines on equality impact assessments. Do members agree?

Members indicated assent.

1 October 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

600. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I welcome Ms Grania Long from the Chartered Institute of Housing. The institute has provided a written submission on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. As is customary, I invite you to make a presentation, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions.

601. Ms Grania Long (Chartered Institute of Housing): Thank you, Chairperson, and good morning. The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) is the professional body for people involved in housing. We work with a host of housing professionals, including those who work full-time in housing and others who give of their time voluntarily, such as tenants and householders who live in social and other forms of housing. The institute is an independent body and has 22,000 members internationally, 500 of whom are in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of our professional members work across all sectors, including the social housing sector, the private-rented sector and the private sector.

602. Our interest in the Housing (Amendment) Bill stems from the need, in our view, for a robust and effective legal framework for housing. We have tabled a written submission on the Bill, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to give oral evidence today. The Bill does what it says on the tin; it adopts a sensible approach. Many of its provisions amend existing legislation; however, it provides only limited opportunities to make more fundamental changes. Most of the additions that I will make to our written evidence today will be concerned with the duty to have a homelessness strategy. That is a fundamental issue, and if we get that right, we will be able to do interesting things.

603. The CIH agrees with other bodies that have given evidence to the Committee that we must be absolutely clear about the intent and nature of the power being given to the Housing Executive to produce a homelessness strategy. There should be no confusion about the requirement to publish a strategy within 12 months of the commencement of clause 1 of the Bill. We are happy with that time frame; a 12-month period will encourage a range of agencies to get round the table and will give them an opportunity to feed in and to consider options for a homelessness strategy. To go beyond that time frame, however, creates problems with momentum.

604. We are pleased with the timescale and the requirement to review the strategy every five years. Some organisations suggested that it be reviewed every three years to fit in with budgetary requirements, but we are fairly relaxed about that. There is a balance to be struck when setting strategies. They should not be an end in themselves; they are a tool and a means to an end. However, if we review the strategy too often we will spend too much time considering what goes into it rather than concentrating on what it should aim to achieve.

605. The CIH has looked at work in other jurisdictions. Homelessness strategies are not new and have been in place in England since the Homelessness Act 2002. Those have been followed up by strategies in Scotland, so there is quite a lot for us in Northern Ireland to learn about how strategies have worked.

606. An interesting point about the Housing (Amendment) Bill is that it provides for a duty not just to deal with homelessness when it happens, but to prevent homelessness. That significant duty should be well resourced. A very different approach is required to prevent homelessness than is required to respond to it after it occurs, particularly as regards the nature of advice, assistance, support and accommodation and how they are provided.

607. A significant programme of Government guidance has been provided to agencies and local authorities in England and Wales since 2002 in preparation for their strategies. Although there is nothing included in the Bill, will the Department for Social Development (DSD) give detailed guidance to the Housing Executive on what the strategy should include? In other jurisdictions, a range of guidance has been given to prevent any confusion around what the strategy should cover.

608. We need to ensure that we resource the preparation and roll-out of the strategy extremely well. We are not emphasising this because we feel that there should be a strategy; rather we want to do something additional to what is already there. If the strategy is going to work, we must ensure that it is well resourced.

609. It is very important that health and social services are front and centre as a partner organisation. They play, and will continue to play, a key role in tenancy sustainment. In order to prevent homelessness, we need to look at not only those who are currently homeless, but those who are living in social housing or other forms of accommodation that are inappropriate and who may well lose their tenancies. A whole body of work must be done by health and social services to contribute to sustaining existing tenancies. That is a critical success factor in the prevention of homelessness.

610. There are issues around how the strategy will be produced. In England, the language in the Homelessness Act 2002 differs from the language in the Housing (Amendment) Bill. English authorities are required by law to review homelessness in their areas and to then formulate and publish a strategy. We must be very clear about what the Housing Executive needs to do to develop the strategy. Do we need to look at how effective their current interventions and approaches are? We need to ensure that we do not miss that.

611. The Homelessness Act 2002 is very prescriptive on key stages and creating a strategy. For example, the Government guidance makes mention of consultation, needs assessment and audit of services, as well as a programme for the planning and implementation of a strategy. We must be very careful about how the strategy is produced.

612. In a broader sense, what is clear from the Housing (Amendment) Bill and its intent is that the Housing Executive is seen as the primary agency for delivering a response to homelessness, and that all of the other agencies flow from that. What is interesting about other jurisdictions is that they have begun to see homelessness as not just a housing problem but as a wider form of social exclusion. Again, I would urge that we ensure that all the other partners are around the table when developing the strategy. When the strategy is being reviewed, checks and balances must be in place to ensure that people do what they have signed up and agreed to do. That is a critical success factor. There are occasions where there are different priorities across agencies, and some agencies can lose momentum.

613. There is also the role of housing associations, which play an incredibly effective role in preventing homelessness. They have an important role in the strategies here. I see them as a critical partner. We must ensure, as we develop the legislation, that we do not lose sight of those two key partners; health and social services and housing associations.

614. Finally, I think we have missed a trick or an opportunity as regards 16- and 17-year-olds. I am aware that the subject has come to the Committee’s notice before. In Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK, 16- and 17-year-olds are not a priority need group. Northern Ireland is falling way behind other jurisdictions by not ensuring that 16- and 17-year-olds are categorised as a priority need group. What does that say to them about how they and their housing options are viewed and valued? We are setting them up for failure at a later stage. If we do not provide for them at the age of 16 and 17, it is much more likely that they will begin a cycle of homelessness later. The failure of the legislation to correct that is a missed opportunity. Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick is probably the most prolific writer on homelessness in the UK. In a paper published earlier this year, she said that there appears to be far less urgency about the issue of homelessness in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK.

615. That is a damning indictment of the current situation, and the treatment of 16- and 17-year-olds is an important factor in how Northern Ireland’s response to homelessness is viewed across the UK. Therefore, as fundamental and large a change as it would be, I urge an examination of the legislation to determine whether it can be used as an opportunity to include 16- and 17-year-olds.

616. We have no major issues with the duty to provide advice and information detailed in clause 2. We support what the Housing Rights Service said about the need to clarify the nature and form of the advice in the DSD guidance, because it is confusing. The intention is that advice and information be provided to everyone, but there seems to be some confusion about how DSD will direct it.

617. For the future, rather than now, which is probably not particularly helpful, CIH strongly feels that we must expand the current provision of advice and information. If we are clear that we want to provide the widest range of housing options and get people into sustainable tenancies and forms of accommodation across all sectors, there must be a single source of independent housing advice on all housing options.

618. At present, an 18-year-old who wants to leave home makes a personal decision on whether to enter the private-rented sector. That decision tends to be based on how much he or she has in his wallet. If the decision is made to enter the private-rented sector, the next step is to go to an agency or estate agency for help. An individual who decides on a social housing tenancy puts his or her name on the Housing Executive’s waiting list, and someone who decides to save for a mortgage goes to a mortgage adviser.

619. Part of the reason that some people in Northern Ireland are now struggling with their housing is that they made the wrong choice. One factor in people not making the right choice is that they do not receive the full range of advice. I understand that the Bill is a small piece of legislation, but, for the future, CIH urges the Committee to examine the general role of housing advice and how effective it is in helping people with their housing options. Some energy and effort must go into that.

620. Generally speaking, the CIH urges the Committee to go beyond the debates on eligibility. I am conscious that I have just spent two minutes outlining how priority need must be expanded to cover 16- and 17-year-olds. However, if we are going to get things right for the next generation, we must move away from the focus on how to ration scarce resources and the selection of those who can or cannot benefit. Every other jurisdiction, with Scotland leading the way, is phasing out priority need over time. That is a huge and radical demand, but we must debate why that is not happening in Northern Ireland. It is not a debate for today, but we must decide how the needs of the most vulnerable can be met in 10 or 15 years’ time.

621. In principle, it seems perfectly sensible to ask the Housing Executive to review its policies on antisocial behaviour, but what is the intention behind that and what do we want to achieve? Are there additional actions that we want other agencies, not only the Housing Executive, to take on antisocial behaviour? I am happy to answer any questions on that.

622. My understanding about the information that is being sought from housing associations — and I am casting my mind back to about a year ago when we met DSD officials to discuss the inspection of housing associations — was that that particular piece of legislation would be used to streamline the inspection process to make it more manageable and proportionate for housing associations. We are disappointed that the legislation does not do more to streamline the process. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA), and others who have more expertise than me, will have views on that. There has been a missed opportunity.

623. The Chairperson: You said that the lead organisation on the homelessness strategy will be the Housing Executive and that the buy-in from others would be equally important in the process, and you backed that up in your evidence. Other than having them as consultees in the drafting of the strategy, and beyond that, how do suggest that we get that buy-in on an ongoing basis?

624. Ms G Long: There are a number of ways of doing that, some of which will require significant changes to the Bill and may not be impossible. We could certainly look at the way in which the code of guidance on homelessness, to which all agencies have to have regard, is developed. That is available in other jurisdictions, and we do not have a statutory code of guidance on homelessness in Northern Ireland. Perhaps other agencies could work alongside the Housing Executive on that, but that would require a change to legislation.

625. Another way of achieving buy-in is to set out in the legislation a statutory review and to stipulate that all the agencies have to set out exactly how they have met the terms and conditions that they were asked to meet in the strategy. It is possible to prescribe that in the Bill, but it would be neater if the Bill stated who the statutory consultees are, and that, as part of the review, they must set out what they have done. A lot of that will come through in guidance. I am a strong fan of guidance documents from Government; they keep us straight, and they allow us to come back to them over time.

626. Mr F McCann: You said at the outset that you believed that there were limited opportunities to deal with this issue. Are we missing a golden opportunity? It may be years before we have another opportunity to deal with a lot of the issues that are before us.

627. Ms G Long: You will not be surprised to hear me answer yes to that question. It is not often that I get the opportunity to look at a housing Bill. I am disappointed that it does not cover a wider range of housing areas. If you were to ask me what one thing I would change, I would say, without question, that we need to extend the priority need category to include 16- and 17-year-olds. Not to have that makes Northern Ireland look deficient.

628. Mr F McCann: As has been touched on a couple of times, there is an impression that the Housing (Amendment) Bill is a tidying-up Bill. The Committee has never looked on it as a tidying-up Bill. We need to deal with a number of the issues now rather than have to revisit them.

629. You mentioned the need to extend priority need to 16- and 17-year-olds. Recently, I dealt with a ridiculous situation in which the parent of a 17-year-old child was leaving the jurisdiction and the housing authority wanted to go after the house because the 17-year-old was too young to claim a tenancy. That shows the nonsense that exists. A number of difficulties were encountered, despite the fact that the person was born in the house and had lived in the house.

630. Are you happy for the Housing Executive to carry out the five-year review of homelessness? Should it be broadened out to the likes of the group that carried out the initial report on homelessness, so that a broader spectrum of views is provided?

631. Ms G Long: I am fairly relaxed about who carries out the review. If it is done properly and openly, it should not matter who does it. If the Housing Executive is called before the Committee, or another body, and is asked to set out publicly what it has done, that is fine; it can do the review itself or it can do it independently. As a public agency, the Housing Executive is perfectly capable of reviewing what it has done. It should be sufficient to ask statutory consultees to feed into the review, and I am sure that CIH and other organisations will have a view on how it is done.

632. Mrs M Bradley: What changes would you like to see to the regulation of registered housing associations?

633. Ms G Long: There is an opportunity in the Bill to make the inspection process for housing associations more streamlined, manageable and proportionate. About a year ago, in May 2008, we held an event at which we informally met DSD officials and housing associations. As a result, we thought that the Housing (Amendment) Bill would afford an opportunity to carry out some of that streamlining. We also thought that it would afford an opportunity to bring forward stronger powers for the Department, if and when it needed them; for example, following an inspection that found poor practice. As I understood it, it was not envisaged that those kinds of powers would need to be used regularly; however, they would help to clarify the inspection process, what happens if DSD has to take action and what actions will follow. The Bill does not cover those areas, so I feel that those opportunities may well have been missed.

634. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. Could any specific resources be given to local communities to tackle antisocial behaviour?

635. Ms G Long: This will probably not answer your question, but I will tell you my preferred approach to antisocial behaviour, which I am talking about because I worked in that area in Scotland. We had the same issues with antisocial behaviour as all jurisdictions have.

636. Some of that behaviour is not antisocial, it is criminal damage, and we need to be clear about that. Some behaviour is carried out by people who do not realise that their behaviour is unacceptable to others, and we need to be clear about that. Some of it is a result of miscommunication between, for example, generations, and some is down to the fact that housing is sometimes allocated inappropriately, so people who probably should not live next to each other are living next to each other.

637. That aside, from my point of view, the most effective approach is when housing provision is linked to effective and well-resourced housing support services. It is incredible to see the turnaround that organisations, particularly those in the voluntary sector, can achieve with well-resourced housing support. As you all know, probably more than I do, one family or household can make all the difference in a community, so housing support services must be really good and targeted effectively.

638. Housing support is expensive and long term, and it does not always provide the quick fix that people would like, but, if it is well resourced, it can deal with antisocial behaviour. It prevents families from being evicted, becoming homeless and moving on to cause the same problems in other areas. That may not be the answer that you wanted from me, but, from my experience, it is the sort of intervention that works most effectively.

639. Mr Brady: As an addendum to what you said, in my constituency, one small estate had huge antisocial behaviour problems, similar to those that you described, so the Housing Executive moved out two families that were causing all the problems and, instead of having two entrances, which allowed cars to come in to do wheelspins etc, it closed one. Those measures helped to upgrade the estate to the point at which it is now considered to be a model of good practice. That relates to what you said.

640. Ms G Long: Simple intervention can sometimes do it; however, if we are to address the problems, then housing support services must be resourced, because they are not cheap. You are talking about maybe two or three support officers working with a family for three or four hours a week over six months or a year, and that is not cheap. Nevertheless, it works.

641. Mr Brady: Management were also involved on a one-to-one basis in the Newry estate.

642. The Chairperson: Grania, I shall just recap the main points in your evidence. You spoke about resourcing the homelessness strategy and ensuring that all agencies deliver on it; the requirement for the Housing Executive to review the strategy as a precursor to its implementation; the priority needs of 16- and 17-year olds; and the reconsideration of priorities for the future.

643. Thank you very much for your evidence; it is much appreciated.

644. Today’s second set of witnesses is from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA). I welcome Mr Ray Cashel, chairman of the federation, Mr Chris Williamson, NIFHA’s chief executive, and Mr Arthur Canning, who is a NIFHA council member and the chief executive of Trinity Housing.

645. Members have been provided with a briefing note from the Committee Clerk and NIFHA’s submission on the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

646. Gentleman, I ask that you give a brief introduction, after which members may ask any questions that they might have.

647. Mr Ray Cashell (Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations): You have already done the introductions, Chairman, so I will not repeat those. I just wish to say a few words, and my colleagues will mention the key points of the written submission that the Committee has already received.

648. Most people know that the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations is the representative body of all registered housing associations, and some other housing bodies, in Northern Ireland. We see ourselves as a significant and central part of the delivery of the housing development strategy, and we are very keen to see things improved.

649. Earlier, the term “tidying-up Bill" was used. We are rather disappointed about the fact that this tidying-up Bill will not tidy up some of the things that we would like to see tidied up. We would, therefore, also appreciate the opportunity to move quickly to a real housing Bill, so that we can talk about some of the bigger issues.

650. In that context, we have identified a number of issues relating to the way in which registered housing associations are operated and managed. How conflicts of interest are managed and how homelessness might affect the way in which housing associations are operated are issues that can cause particular problems.

651. I now hand over to Arthur, who will look at the issue of the regulation of housing associations.

652. Mr Arthur Canning (Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations): I wish to make a few comments on clauses 6 to 8, which pertain to the regulatory powers over housing associations. The Committee is well aware that the Department already has far-reaching powers in that respect, which are embedded in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.

They safeguard public investment and the rights of tenants of registered housing associations. It is important to note that, since the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, the most stringent powers have, to the best of my knowledge, never been used or consulted. However, the federation recognises that it is important to safeguard the public investment and the housing association movement’s good record since its establishment. The federation is not opposed to the further powers in the Bill. However, we trust that the Committee will take this opportunity to ensure that the powers in the Bill are used only in the most extreme and serious cases.

653. Mr Cashell: I want to discuss introductory tenancies. Initially, our members were not convinced that that UK-wide change would necessarily help the situation. One problem with the drafting of the legislation was that it created a situation whereby it was possibly more difficult to deal with an introductory tenant than to deal with a secure tenant. One area of concern was the absence of provision for dealing with abandonment during the introductory period. We are pleased that such provision will be introduced. We are still concerned that there are gaps in the introductory tenancies process; we want those to be removed. However, we specifically welcome the arrangement that introductory tenancies can, in the event of abandonment, be closed down in the same way as secure tenancies. We are still concerned about some other aspects of introductory tenancies, and we may want to talk about those later.

654. The more difficult problem concerns the prevention of conflict of interest. We are committed to the Nolan principles of public service, whereby there should be no conflicts of interest and, where they do exist, they are dealt with openly and transparently. Our major concern is that a rather archaic tool, article 31 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, is used to govern that principle. It applies to housing associations and not to any other part of the voluntary sector or public sector. It imposes such an overall ban on conflicts of interest that it could gum up the works quite substantially.

655. We are particularly concerned that the procurement strategy is taking us into a different style of large-scale procurement, whereby article 31 could sabotage the whole process. We want that article to be abolished and replaced with a more coherent and sensible code of public conduct and a robust system for declaration and prevention of conflict of interest. Article 31 is an archaic piece of legislation that might have been relevant when a housing association was deemed to be a small voluntary body with two staff. However, it is not applicable to consortiums of housing associations that have 2,000 or 3,000 staff, all of whom must demonstrate that they have no relationship whatsoever with a contractor before that contractor can be used. That could conflict with EU legislation. It is the equivalent of saying that if a builder is related to a DSD employee, the builder cannot work for the Department. We encountered an example where a junior cleaner who worked five hours a week was related to a contractor. The contractor lost his contract. That is the sort of archaic provision in article 31. We want that to be replaced by an intelligent provision.

656. We are disappointed that this question has still not been dealt with even though we have been raising it for several years. In order to allow the procurement strategy to proceed, the Department will have to introduce a determination to exempt certain forms of contract — the procurement strategy will not work otherwise. We want the matter to be dealt with now, and we want provision to be included in the Bill. It will cause major problems for us in complying with the procurement strategy and meeting the Minister’s target on social housing. That is a major issue, on which we have pressed the Department for a number of years without results.

657. Mr Chris Williamson (Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee again. As our chairman said, the federation is not opposed to the legislation. The Department accepts that it is not strictly necessary right now. Nonetheless, it regards it as a precautionary piece of legislation that will give the Department even more powers to inspect registered housing associations. Under that same precautionary principle, it is sensible to use the legislative opportunity to make provision for a contingency that would arise if Sir David Varney’s recommendations were accepted by the Northern Ireland Executive or if the Housing Executive’s stock was separated from its strategic powers.

658. How would homelessness be assessed if that situation arose, because the body responsible for housing in such a scenario would not, as things sit at present, have the statutory power to assess homelessness? Only the Housing Executive would have that power, and the Housing Executive has told us for many years that the law does not allow it to delegate the responsibility for that assessment.

659. Therefore, broadly matching legislative change that was introduced in Great Britain many years ago when stock transfer occurred in many local authorities, we suggest that the Committee at least seriously considers this issue. Another housing Bill is coming down the track, but we have not seen it yet, and all sorts of mishaps could happen which might put that back for years. It seemed to the federation that if there were to be any significant movement at some stage in the direction of the Varney recommendations, it might be wise to take this legislative opportunity to make enabling legislation to allow the Housing Executive to delegate that responsibility legally.

660. Finally, we asked the Committee about the repeal of the rent surplus fund in private session in the spring. Since then, we were assured — by the Minister no less — that that will be dealt with in the proposed legislation that I just mentioned. The Minister told us that, in the meantime, she will take administrative action to reduce to the bare minimum the administrative and bureaucratic inconvenience that is required. We accept the Minister’s assurance on that, so we are no longer asking for repeal of the rent surplus fund in this legislation. We are content that that will happen in due course.

661. The Chairperson: Thank you. Much has been said about enabling legislation with regard to the Varney recommendations, but no decision has been taken by anyone. I am too new at this to know whether the Committee has taken a view on that. Would enabling the Housing Executive to delegate the assessment of homelessness to registered housing associations help to get others more involved in delivering a homelessness strategy?

662. Mr Williamson: It would help a little, but would not be a major direct contributor. The law requires registered housing associations to co-operate with the Housing Executive to discharge its homelessness functions. That requirement has been on the statute book for years, and our members have been major co-operators with the Housing Executive in that. That is probably the main reason why I do not think that that other enabling legislation would make a big difference.

663. The Chairperson: You are suggesting that we look down the line to a point when circumstances allow the Varney recommendations or something similar to be moved forward.

664. Mr Williamson: Yes.

665. Mr Cashell: It would become essential at that stage. We would be keen to see it happen earlier, but if there were a stock transfer, as Varney recommended, it would be essential to have a coherent arrangement for who is managing the housing waiting list register. The argument is that homelessness is supposed to be assessed for every application; therefore housing associations are not allowed to assess anyone for anything.

666. The problem is, even if the stock were transferred, the Housing Executive would have to retain the waiting list, as it does now. Even though it would not be managing houses, the Housing Executive would be the only body allowed to assess anyone. However, it would have no basis for doing that; it would have no housing, it would have no housing officers, and it would not be able to allocate anybody to anything. Therefore, why would the Housing Executive run the waiting list? It is absolutely essential at that point. However, we have always said that it is a good idea to spread the load and to allow us all to participate in the process.

667. Mr Canning: It is also an issue of simple human rights. There may be some who are satisfied that, at this moment in time, everything can be signposted towards the Housing Executive. However, there is the issue of a person’s right to have their issue addressed wherever they wish to make that point of contact. If that was widened out, certainly that would ease the burden on people who are in a situation of obvious housing stress, wherever they make their approach.

668. Mr Williamson: There are people on the housing waiting list, or perhaps not, who specifically and only want to live in housing association accommodation. However, at the moment, the rules are such that they are assessed by a Housing Executive officer. That officer may or may not know the full ins and outs of the service on offer or the particular geographical options that there are. We have been speaking out about that for some time.

669. To get back to the original point, we suggest to the Committee that legislative opportunities such as this do not come along all that often, and many a mishap can interfere with the best laid plans for future legislation. We are inviting the Committee to look down the line and envisage a “what if" situation. I emphasise, again, that this is an enabling power, rather than something that is mandatory.

670. The Chairperson: It will not be judging anything.

671. Mr F McCann: The jury is out on the Varney report, and we have had a number of conversations around where housing associations would rest on that. I think that housing associations will be looking over their shoulders, worrying about the loss of the Housing Executive’s power and wondering where to obtain that. There is a mixture of that in what you say.

672. The last report on homelessness was by a cross-sectoral group that included departmental figures and the broad voluntary housing sector. I am surprised that you said that that sector would have only a limited role. I think the report that it provided was excellent, although a lot of stuff ended up out of date before it was implemented. I think that it would be a good thing to take that away, although not completely, from the Housing Executive, and to bring that expertise together on a regular basis to continually update the homeless legislation.

673. Mr Cashell: We fully agree with that. We were equally disappointed that the promoting social inclusion among homeless people report was so long in arriving. A lot of solutions to homelessness are managed by housing associations and their joint management partners, rather than by the Housing Executive. We are very keen to be fully involved in that, and we would like to see that.

674. Mr Williamson: Perhaps, Mr McCann, I did not explain my point. I am certainly not saying that the role played by voluntary organisations, including our federation, is limited. I am the federation’s representative on the continuing inter-agency body, promoting social inclusion of homelessness people. I am still on that body because I think that the process is not finished, and that, perhaps, it never will be, because the needs of homeless people might never cease.

675. If I gave the impression that the role of the wider voluntary sector, and housing associations, is not significant, I have given you the wrong impression. I was specifically saying that because registered housing associations have, for ages, had a legal duty to co-operate with the Housing Executive in the delivery of solutions for homeless people, giving it some extra duties or responsibilities would not make a big difference.

676. As our chairman said, we are absolutely convinced that the role of the wider voluntary and community sector will continue to be essential.

677. The voluntary representatives on the promoting social inclusion group are united in the opinion that there needs to be continuing input by them and, in particular, the statutory players. I am talking about bodies outside of the Department for Social Development — the education sector and the health and social care sector have to make an input to achieve continued co-operation and inter-agency working to relieve the homelessness issue.

678. Mr Brady: Thank you for your presentation. When assessing homelessness, the main thrust is choice and administration. The previous witnesses talked about the criteria for 16 and 17-year-olds. Would the criteria be changed if the issue were delegated to other bodies other than the Housing Executive? Does that need to be looked at in more detail?

679. Mr Williamson: Those are two completely different things. The federation agrees with the CIH, and others, that 16 and 17-year-olds should be regarded as priority cases, irrespective of any other circumstances. I regard the two issues as distinct. The criterion for statutory homelessness is one thing, and it will be laid down by law and rules. The assessment is a different issue.

680. Mr Brady: My question was whether you would be happy to implement statutory changes in the criteria in respect of 16 and 17-year-olds, but I think that you have answered that.

681. Mr Cashell: There is a complication, because of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The big problem has been the dialogue between the Housing Executive and the social care system about who will have responsibility for 16- and 17-year-olds and who is going to take the risk, because 16- or 17-year-olds who want to enter the housing system, as priority cases, have to go through the care system. That is massively counterproductive. We need a lot of things. There is also a massive disparity between the treatment of a 17-year-old who is married or with a child and a single 17-year-old. Further to Fra McCann’s point, what happens to a 17-year-old who is in a position of needing to succeed to his or her family tenancy, and not being allowed to? A lot of issues need to be addressed. It must not become the case that an individual will get help only if he or she is so bad that they become a child in care. There must be a broader view, and that is why we have to actively support the view that everybody who is homeless should be considered as a priority, even if they are under 18, and they should not have to go into care to ensure that their case is dealt with.

682. Mr F McCann: One of the major issues faced not only by the housing authorities, but elected politicians, is antisocial behaviour. I notice that you have not mentioned antisocial behaviour in the report. Does that mean that you are happy with the legislation that is in place?

683. Mr Williamson: Not at all. We wanted to focus on what we consider the main issues for housing associations, and, of course, antisocial behaviour affects housing association tenants just as much as it does anybody else. Our line is identical to that of Grania Long: housing support services are the most effective means of trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. Legislation can help. Our members are always telling me that there are laws in place, and they have been in place for ages, but getting enforcement on them is the devil’s own job. In Northern Ireland, we have the unique situation where only the Enforcement of Judgments Office can evict tenants — and God forbid that an eviction is ordered. No other part of the United Kingdom has such a body. Our members tell us that there are huge delays in getting to the court to make an order for possession, and an even longer delay, sometimes, between that order being given by the court and the Enforcement of Judgments Office carrying out the eviction. That is a serious problem for our members, because it undermines the credibility of enforcement action.

684. The Chairperson: Non-enforcement results in a good law becoming a bad law.

685. Mr Cashell: It is not primarily a legislative issue. There is a huge resource issue with whether Supporting People has the ability to provide the housing services that are required. Housing associations are not among the bodies that are allowed to trigger ASBOs, not that they are necessarily a solution in their own right. However, the Housing Executive can trigger them in their own right. Such a device would allow us to use them where appropriate. Again, we do not feel that antisocial behaviour is primarily a legislative issue; it is a resource and management issue.

686. The Chairperson: The Chartered Institute of Housing suggested a general examination of the regulation of housing associations. What are your thoughts on that suggestion?

687. Mr Cashell: We like the term “streamline" that Grania Long used. We are still awaiting the streamlining bit. As Arthur said, we are not challenging or objecting to the legislative provision, because that reflects existing UK legislation. It is counterproductive to introduce that sort of stick at a time when we are trying to make the relationship more helpful and supportive. We want to be convinced that the Department see it as a tool of last resort rather than as an easy device to bring us into line. The provision is not a problem per se, but it is counterproductive to introduce that style of provision at the moment.

688. We recognise that the provision will bring us into line with UK legislation. We would prefer the introduction of an empowering and supportive regulatory framework that recognises the basic core fact that we are independent organisations that avail themselves heavily of government funding and work to deliver government strategy. However, it belies the whole process to introduce regulation in the form of micromanagement, which challenges the basic nature of the operation, at a time when we might want to convert the Housing Executive into a very large housing association. Given the nature of our work and the scale of operation, much of the regulatory framework is excessive. We do not object to the legislation; we much prefer a conscious plan, as Grania says, to streamline and ease the process and to make it commensurate with the scale of our operation.

689. Mr Williamson: I fully endorse our chairman’s comments. However, it might be useful for Committee members to understand that the law is one thing, and how the regulator operates is another. We fully support streamlining and proportionality in the regulation but we do not need changes to legislation to achieve that. That is why we are not too excited about the fact that there is nothing in the proposed legislation to say that the regulation of housing associations will be streamlined. We expect that to happen in operations. As our chairman said, we are working with the Department to move in that direction.

690. The Chairperson: Clause 10 is about the antisocial behaviour element, which Fra mentioned. The Committee has already heard the suggestion that, in addition to the Housing Executive, housing associations should publish antisocial behaviour strategies and policy. Could, and would, housing associations make those publications voluntarily?

691. Mr Cashell: We are keen to be open and transparent and to publish all that we do. We could have a problem if we were given a highly prescriptive format and level of detail that did not fit our operation. It is great to harmonise frameworks and allow the public to examine our material and compare what is happening. However, it often results in highly elaborate, over-the-top formats for presentation of information and demands for collection of information. We would be happy to publish all our work and policies. None of us would have a difficulty with that. However, it would have to be done on the basis that we design policies to suit the circumstances of our housing association and that our intervention strategies are based on the type of association and the locality in which we work, rather than everyone adopting a standard model. The purpose of our movement is to be diverse, and moves to harmonise us into a single narrow practice defeat the purpose of what we are trying to do.

692. Mr Canning: My association might have to deal with a young family or a single, 86-year-old elderly person who is suffering from antisocial behaviour. We have structures in place, and we make them available to tenants, but they have to be shaped in such a way that a range of people feel comfortable with them.

693. Mr Cashell: A good example of that is that one of the devices in the framework is the ability, under certain circumstances, to bar someone from being allocated social housing for two years. Some of our projects exist precisely to house and assist those people. Consequently, we cannot subject ourselves to the same prohibitions that mainstream providers might want. The purpose of our enterprise is to intervene and help in a different way and maybe to find alternatives to eviction. We have the resources and mechanisms to handle such evictions; whereas others might not. So there has to be diversity and flexibility. Nevertheless, we would have no problem with publishing.

694. The Chairperson: The legislation does not and probably will not set out the way that you must do it.

695. Mr Cashell: Prohibition is an issue, because the implication is that we should not be allowed to house people who have been prohibited. The device is there to prohibit people, but some of our projects exist specifically to house those people, and attempts to harmonise the system and say that no one is allowed to house them defeats the purpose of what we are trying to do. There must be flexibility for certain cases. Nonetheless, there seems to be a general movement for all documents to look exactly the same so that the public can understand them, but that is difficult to achieve in a diverse movement.

696. The Chairperson: I understand. In our first evidence session, a service head expressed concern about not getting sight of some association’s policies. Then there is the dichotomy between the compulsion to publish that is on the Housing Executive but not on housing associations, which have an increasing number of properties.

697. Mr F McCann: Many people, not just Housing Executive tenants, are confused by antisocial behaviour powers, particularly when the associations tell them different things. You mentioned the two-year rule, but there seems to be an emphasis on the new duty of care towards applicants and existing tenants. That poses serious problems. If an applicant has a background of antisocial activities, because he or she can get intimidation points, he or she can automatically, and with no explanation, be moved in beside somebody. Such a person can destroy a whole street or area.

698. Mr Cashell: That is a tricky subject, and it is certainly not one for legislation. It is a question of managing the social housing applicant register and of the level of discretion that applies to any landlord — Housing Executive or housing association — to make management decisions of the type that you described. If we are told overtly that a particular person has 210 points, is at the top of the list, and we must give him or her the next vacancy that comes up, our hands are tied.

699. If local Housing Executive managers have such discretion, we need to have the same level of discretion. Obviously, we must be accountable for how we use that discretion, but, in order to make the sort of decisions that you mentioned, it must be clearly understood that we have the same level of discretion as a Housing Executive district manager. We look at where an applicant is to be housed, decide whether it is appropriate and safe, and, if it is not, justify bypassing him or her. There needs to be a clear framework, so that we can all work on the same level and account for individual decisions, without creating risk for other people. That is why housing associations run specialist projects where some of those individuals will end up.

700. Mr F McCann: An impact assessment must also be carried out for each area. There is a perception that many of those people end up in areas that already suffer from severe antisocial activity.

701. Mr Cashell: The common selection scheme, as we call it, is not a legislative thing and operates at a much lower level; however, there are a lot of practical issues about information sharing. For instance, before making an allocation decision, housing associations should have access to that information.

702. Mr F McCann: But you do not tell people in the area.

703. Mr Cashell: Sometimes, we do not know why someone is in particular circumstances, because we only get the file at a late stage in the process, when we may have already engaged in dialogue with that person about an allocation. There are a number of information strings, but that should not concern us at this level. Such matters are dealt with at an operational level between ourselves and the Housing Executive. The Varney review changes a lot of those ground rules, so they will all be up in the air again, but they will have to be fully addressed.

704. We are fully appreciative of the issues, and our primary concern is that we are understood to have the same level of discretion as a district manager, and that we can plan to avoid those issues and involve the community in those decisions. We do not understand that we currently have that discretion, and we would like to work towards it; accountably, of course.

705. The Chairperson: To summarise your evidence; you have spoken about the introduction of a better, more appropriate code of conduct for housing association board members and employees; the introduction of an additional clause to permit the Housing Executive to delegate assessment of homelessness to another body; and you welcome the introductory tenancy clauses and the enhancement of the Department’s power in respect of the housing association.

706. Mr Cashell: I think that you said that we welcome the Department’s regulations: we are not objecting to them.

707. The Chairperson: I am putting words in your mouth. I am suitably chastised.

708. Thank you very much for your evidence; it has been much appreciated.

709. We now move to the third evidence session on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. We are joined by Murray Watt, liaison officer from Supporting Communities NI; and Colm McDaid, the area manager of Supporting Communities NI. You are both very welcome. Members have copies of the Clerk’s covering letter and the submission from Supporting Communities. Gentlemen, you may talk on your submission before questions from members.

710. Mr Murray Watt (Supporting Communities NI): Thank you. Good morning. I think it is still morning. I am on Rome time; I was on holiday until yesterday, so I am still a little ahead of myself.

711. First, I will introduce Colm and myself. My name is Murray Watt, and this morning, I completed 17 years with both the Northern Ireland Tenants Action Project and Supporting Communities. Hopefully, I have learned something in that time. I do some of the policy and information work for the organisation, as well as working with community organisations and the Housing Executive across Belfast, Castlereagh and Newtownabbey.

712. Mr Colm McDaid (Supporting Communities NI): Good morning. I am Colm McDaid, area manager covering the west and south of Northern Ireland in relation to the work of our liaison officers. I have not been on holiday, so I am on our time. [Laughter.]

713. Mr Watt: Supporting Communities was previously known as the Northern Ireland Tenants’ Action Project. Prior to that, it was known as the Estate Action Project; and prior to that, it comprised a number of liaison officers working out of the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust.

We have been kicking dust about for some time. This morning I will highlight our mechanism for tenant involvement in the Housing Executive structures and outline our comments on a clause that relates to the constitution of the Housing Executive board.

714. There are 35 housing community networks covering each Housing Executive district office. The three offices in Derry have merged. Each network is facilitated by ourselves in conjunction with the Housing Executive and consists of community reps or tenant representatives from groups in that district. In addition, each district panel sends two representatives to one of five Housing Executive areas. In the past number of years, the Housing Executive has undertaken a modernising services process, which is nearing completion. Functions in the area offices have increased to include housing benefit, accounts, and so on. Therefore, members carry out more of a monitoring exercise at area meetings. Each of the five area areas sends three representatives to a central housing community network, which meets the housing and regeneration department in the Housing Executive monthly.

715. Mr McDaid: Murray mentioned the central housing community network element of the framework; I attend those meetings with my colleague Brian Holmes, who is the director of Supporting Communities. We facilitate those meetings, the purpose of which is to meet assistant directors, principal officers and policy officers from the Housing Executive to consider new policies and to review existing policies. Moreover, we have recently developed a community involvement strategy, through which an action plan for the next two or three years has been developed to scrutinise, on a sequence basis, different elements of the Housing Executive’s service delivery.

716. Mr Watt: Every year in October — in a fortnight in fact — each network sends delegates to our annual conference. We produce an annual report on the work of the housing community network. I will pre-empt a question from Mr McCann —

717. Ms Ní Chuilín: You do not need to push him.

718. The Chairperson: That question was the odds-on favourite.

719. Mr Watt: Most, if not all, of the district panels discuss the response to antisocial behaviour with district managers and district staff at some point during the year. That happens annually, and we have a planned programme of work for it.

720. Given the level of involvement and given how the Housing Executive monitors and evaluates its own performance after the modernisation process, the type of work that members at all levels of the housing community network are expected to do has become increasingly complex. The fact that tenant community reps have a role and responsibility is particularly important. In recent years, we have undertaken shopping exercises to, hopefully, lead to a piloted tenant-led inspection for Housing Executive services.

721. I am leading you down this alleyway because I want to address our comments this morning specifically to the constitution of the Housing Executive board. In previous opportunities, we lobbied or suggested that there should be tenant representation on the board. Given that the Bill seems to suggest that the constitution might change or be subject to change, it is an opportune time to reconsider that process. Although I have spoken at length about the housing community network, I will not suggest how that tenant representation might be drawn. Public appointment rules and procedures must be followed. However, I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the Housing Executive, the Department and the Committee to come up with a proper mechanism to enable that to happen.

722. The Chairperson: Does that answer your question, Fra?

723. Mr F McCann: Representative bodies of tenants groups across the North will be coming forward with suggestions on how antisocial behaviour can be dealt with, and I am impressed that you are consulting with tenant groups and associations, in particular, to allow them their input.

724. Mr Watt: There will be level and depth to that involvement. Recently, we had a number of consultations on antisocial behaviour, particularly in Newtownabbey. Representatives from the Police Service, the borough council and the Housing Executive were present. We looked at the responses of each of the agencies and at how the community organisations would have a role and responsibility within that. Through the various antisocial behaviour protocols, there is an exclusion on external representation in the formal structures. Building the links and relationships between communities and the people who have functions and responsibilities to discharge makes a significant positive impact on how antisocial behaviour can be tackled in each area.

725. Mr McDaid: Mr Watt mentioned one of the examples through which communities are getting more involved in evaluating and monitoring Housing Executive services. He referred to the tenant-led inspection pilot, which will look at the first area of services, the community safety unit and antisocial behaviour. Tenants will examine the procedures and policy in relation to how antisocial behaviour is dealt with, and, perhaps, make some recommendations as to how its service delivery can be improved.

726. Mr F McCann: Would you see it as a lost opportunity if we did not widen the Bill to take in other aspects? I asked that question to other witnesses. Some people look on the Bill as a tidying-up exercise.

727. Mr Watt: The loopholes in the legislation and the mechanisms had to be addressed. I am hopeful, given the support from a number of circles in the Chartered Institute of Housing’s inquiry into the future of housing, that we might be able to broaden the responses to a range of housing issues. The current economic circumstances throw into sharper focus some of those issues, such as the long-term future funding of the Housing Executive and the type of services that it can be expected to deliver and manage.

728. There is a range of issues there. I am not overly upset about the content of the Bill, because it had a particular function to fulfil, but we might be back in a year’s time, having a more in-depth conversation about where we are going with regard to future public and social housing in the Province.

729. Mr F McCann: The other side of the coin is that we may not have an opportunity, by way of a housing Bill, to deal with some of the difficulties for many years.

730. Mr Watt: That is a pessimistic view, but I recognise that it is possible. However, we have been afforded an opportunity. A number of challenges were set in this morning’s presentations, and the opportunity to do something radical with regard to the constitution of the Housing Executive board should not go begging.

731. Mr F McCann: It could be a case of self-interest.

732. Mr Watt: I do not know about that.

733. Mr F McCann: I am talking about the group, not you.

734. The Chairperson: Please be as optimistic as you want; pessimism seems to rule the day here too often.

735. Mr Hilditch: You state that the community network is possibly the best way in which to ensure that new tenants get on the board. There may be others who feel the same. Will you develop your reasons for saying that?

736. Mr Watt: One reason that we wanted to highlight the work of the Housing Community Network was to demonstrate the capacity that individuals have to voluntarily participate in the policies, procedures, management and evaluation of Housing Executive activities. As Colm McDaid said, tenant-led inspections are the next step.

737. Having established that there are volunteers who have the interest, energy and capacity to do that, I suspect that how tenant representation is reflected on the board would be a matter for other people. The public appointments policies and procedures would obviously have to be followed. While I was thinking about that during the past couple of weeks, it struck me that it would be fairly straightforward for the Chairman of the Board of the Housing Executive to write to every tenant to invite their application, which would then be processed in the same way as any other non-departmental public body.

738. It may well be that somebody from the Housing Community Network would be better placed by virtue of their experience, but in every walk of life and in every competitive recruitment process that will always be the case. If I were to paddle a particular, selfish viewpoint, I think that the Housing Community Network would provide an ideal foundation or framework from which to formally step up onto the Housing Executive Board. However, the law probably precludes that. The Committee may seek a view on that.

739. Mr McDaid: I concur. Supporting Communities regards the Housing Community Network as an ideal channel that enables communication upwards and downwards from grass-roots level.

740. Mr Hilditch: I missed the figures that were provided at the start of the evidence. Is the Housing Community Network represented in each of the 26 council areas?

741. Mr Watt: Yes. There are 37 Housing Executive district offices, and the networks — the three in Derry were merged — has representation right across the Province. We have not gone as far as putting pins on maps, but I am confident that there is a presence in most estates and most urban and rural areas across the Province.

742. Mr F McCann: Is it organised like the old consumer panels?

743. Mr Watt: Yes, and the old community advisory groups before that. Members involved in inter-agency housing forums know that even below formal district office level there is involvement down to estate and even to neighbourhood level.

744. The Housing Executive must be commended for that because, while it employs us to help, its staff who facilitate that contact demonstrate great commitment, particularly in towns where district office staff numbers are significantly reduced. We are happy to continue to support that.

745. The Chairperson: On another issue, will Mr Watt elaborate on the concerns that he expressed about the clause related to repossessions of introductory tenancies?

746. Mr Watt: I understand that the operation of introductory tenancies across the water led to concerns being expressed by the Chartered Institute of Housing nationally and locally that, as a mechanism, it became more difficult to repossess an abandoned introductory tenancy than a secure tenancy. That defeated the purpose for which introductory tenancies were originally designed.

747. Housing providers would be better-placed to judge, but a mechanism that loses its credibility in that way makes it difficult to argue to tenants’ representatives that we are tackling or managing voids through such a mechanism when, in fact, it is failing to hit the mark. I am sure that from involvement in constituency housing affairs, members are aware that tenants are no mugs.

748. The Chairperson: Thank you. To summarise your evidence; you have covered the requirement to consult voluntary and community sector organisations on the formulation of the homelessness strategy; that of the Department to produce a code of guidance in order to ensure consistency of advice; setting out guidance on circumstances that would warrant departmental intervention in housing associations; a requirement to ensure that rights of introductory tenants are equal to those of other tenants; and, — perhaps, most importantly — provision for tenant representation on the Housing Executive’s board.

749. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence and for coming along today. It is much appreciated.

750. Mr Watt: Thank you.

751. The Chairperson: Our final evidence session is from the Northern Ireland Housing Council. At tab 9 of your packs, you will find a covering note from the Committee Clerk; the Housing Council’s submission on the Housing Bill; an extract from the Housing Executive’s annual report 2008-09; and a copy of the Housing Council’s report on the Bridging the Gaps convention.

752. I welcome Gerry Gallagher, who is the chairman of the Housing Council; Jim Brown, who is the vice-chairman; and Eamonn O’Neill, who is a member. I note that other members of the Housing Council are present in the gallery. I also welcome them to the meeting.

753. Gerry, I ask you to provide a brief outline of your submission in order to begin your evidence. I will then open the floor to members for questions.

754. Mr Gerry Gallagher (Northern Ireland Housing Council): Thank you very much, Chairman. Good afternoon, everyone. It is my pleasure to attend the Committee with my colleagues from the Housing Council. My vice chairman is Jim Brown. Councillor Jim Speers from Armagh City and District Council is also present, as is Councillor Jennifer Palmer from Lisburn City Council; Councillor Brendan Curran from Newry and Mourne District Council; and our secretary, Carol Reynolds.

755. As you are aware, our primary reason for being here is to make a submission to the Committee on the Housing Bill. Before I address the Bill, I will ask my vice chairperson, Jim Brown, to provide a brief outline of the roles and workings of the Housing Council.

756. Mr Jim Brown (Northern Ireland Housing Council): Chairperson and members, I thank you for the opportunity to raise the profile of the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

757. It would be helpful to provide some historical background. Under the McCrory report that was published in the 1970s, certain main areas of local government were transferred to central bodies, and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive came into being through the Housing Executive Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. It is interesting that, in the current climate, with the review of public administration pending, the same type of situation is in vogue 30-odd years later.

758. We have been rescued from the chopping block, as it were, in that the Minister has decided that the Northern Ireland Housing Council will continue to operate. I humbly suggest that that shows how useful we have been in the past.

759. The role of the Housing Council is to act as an advisory and consultative body; to provide a monitoring role for the Housing Executive, and to be representative.

760. Membership of the Housing Council comprises one representative from each of the 26 local authorities. The Housing Council is divided into two main committees: the housing and regeneration committee and the corporate design and property services committee. We also have a number of housekeeping committees such as the standing orders committee, the policy committee and the awards committee.

761. The responsibilities of the corporate design and property services committee include the newbuild programme; research and development; the effects of housing on health and other areas of public interest; the Supporting People programmes; keeping an eye on the private rented sector; helping to advise DSD on the development of strategies; equality issues; houses in multiple occupation; migrant workers; and asylum seekers.

762. The housing and regeneration committee deals largely with housing policy and services, rents, allocations, homelessness, state strategies and services — [Inaudible due to mobile phone interference.] It also covers the regeneration activity of the Executive and housing associations; land and property, which is an issue in the current climate, given the land bank and the colossal land prices; environmental management; and housing benefit. The Housing Council caters for and monitors the whole stratum of social housing and those who are eligible for it. I will try to give you a flavour of the issues that we deal with and show that the Housing Council is active and not a body that merely meets and has lunch every now and again.

763. The Chairperson: I am sure that you do have lunch.

764. Mr J Brown: I will not go into that. [Laughter.]

765. We recently addressed the assessment of applicants with mental health difficulties; the maintenance of investment strategy; health and safety in the Housing Executive stock; the risk register; fuel poverty; adaptations; and occupational therapy services. The Housing Council made representations and met the direct rule Health Minister to point out that the occupational therapy facility was badly serviced, with fewer people coming into it. We saw changes as a result of those discussions.

766. We scrutinise the Housing Executive budget, although there is not as much to scrutinise in the current economic climate. We have concentrated on issues such as funding; the review of public administration; ageing in an inclusive society, because we are all getting older no matter how young we are; the LOTS initiative, which we regret has not been processed due to the unavailability of funds; and the DSD neighbourhood renewal strategy.

767. Supporting People and the flatlining of the budget has been a problem for many organisations that seek to help the vulnerable in society. The Housing Council has made its views known on that matter. Indeed, we took up the matter of the future role of the Housing Council and successfully convinced the Minister to retain it. Travellers and unauthorised encampments — perhaps not an issue full of vote-catching potential — is not really something that we deal with. It is an issue for which we have a responsibility to be serious and sympathetic. At present, the Housing Executive is charged with transit sites and the provision of facilities. We see that as an issue that must be addressed. Again, under section 75, the Irish Travellers are almost a protected group, and they have special rights.

768. Homelessness is an issue that has exercised us. It may be impertinent of me to say it, but we see the Housing Council, through community planning in the 11 councils under RPA, providing the community involvement required in the future. We see the Housing Council being not a function but a wing of community involvement in the new councils. It would be the vehicle for community involvement.

769. The Housing Council secretariat is serviced by a team of people in the housing advice centre under the direction of Mrs Carol Reynolds. She is the person to contact should you have any questions further to my presentation.

770. The Chairperson: Thank you, Jim.

771. Mr G Gallagher: Thank you, Jim, for that résumé. Returning to the submission on the Housing (Amendment) Bill, the Committee has a copy of our letter to the Committee Clerk in which we welcome this long-awaited legislation. It also draws attention to what we feel is an anomaly in section 12 on the increase in membership for the Housing Council on the board of the Housing Executive. Our letter states that:

“In the past when changes were made to the legislation governing the number of Members on the Executive Board (Housing Bill (NIA Bill 24/01) the Housing Council recommended that the wording relating to Housing Council Board Membership should be changed to allow for any future changes in numbers at the Minister’s discretion. This would have served to negate the need for future changes to legislation should numbers of representatives increase. The Housing Council’s recommendation was not taken on Board hence the need for the current amendment. The current amendment as it is drafted will however carry the same flaw in that it does not allow for any further change to the number of Housing Council representatives on the Board should that be deemed appropriate in future."

The Bill specifies the number of representatives.

772. Our letter states that the matter of increased representation by elected representatives on NDPB boards will be the subject of further discussion with the Minister. We had a meeting with the Minister this morning, and it was one of the topics discussed. Our letter continues:

“The Housing Council as an elected representative body considers that the majority of Members of a Quango should be elected representatives and as such intends to seek further representation on the Housing Executive Board. Irrespective of whether or not the Housing Council’s representations to the Minister are successful Members feel that it is prudent to make provision for possible change in numbers within the forthcoming legislation."

Accordingly, the Housing Council recommends that section 12 of the Bill be changed as follows:

“In paragraph 1(1) to the Order of 1981 (the Northern Ireland Housing Executive), for the words ‘three’ there shall be substituted ‘a minimum of four, or such greater number as decided by the Minister.’"

That would prevent the need to further review the legislation in the future.

773. In conclusion, I ask my colleague Mr Eamonn O’Neill to say a few words about what the Committee could, perhaps, investigate in the future that would be in the interests of the Housing Council and the Committee itself.

774. The Chairperson: Is it in relation to the Bill? Does it dovetail with the Bill?

775. Mr Eamonn O’Neill (Northern Ireland Housing Council): Not necessarily. We provided the Committee with a report of our convention findings. With your permission, Chairman, I will say a few words on that matter.

776. The Chairperson: We are here to take evidence on the Bill, and I do not want to open the session to a broad range of other issues. As best as I can control them, members will ask questions, and we will get away from the issue in hand, which is the Housing Bill. At a different juncture, we might want to —

777. Mr E O’Neill: Will you allow me a few minutes at the conclusion of the meeting?

778. The Chairperson: We have a very tight timescale; there will not be an opportunity to go into such issues in a depth that they merit. We may be able to discuss the matter at another juncture. I am happy for me and the Deputy Chairman to meet you to discuss those issues. We can find another way to do that. You could contact the Committee Clerk about a further briefing fairly soon. I want to focus on the Bill and not deviate from that issue.

779. Mr Easton: How many members do you have on the Housing Executive board at the moment?

780. Mr G Gallagher: Four. There were previously three members only, but the legislation was changed to make it four.

781. Mr Easton: Do you envisage a situation in the future where your representation will increase?

782. Mr G Gallagher: It is a possibility. Discussions are ongoing. In fact, we discussed the matter with the Minister this morning.

783. Mr J Brown: We consider the democratisation of “quangoland" a priority. The accountability of public bodies should be in the hands of elected representatives. Therefore, we are nudging at the door and seeking greater representation. We want at least half of the Housing Executive board — five members — to be elected representatives. The chairman highlighted the addendum that the present change was necessitated because a form of wording was not introduced that opened the door. It does not necessarily mean that the door has to be opened. However, it means that, in the eventuality of it being desirable, a majority of elected representatives would be on the board. The wording that the chairman quoted this morning would allow that to happen without a change in the legislation.

784. Mr E O’Neill: That is consistent with developments in health and education.

785. The Chairperson: That is a fair point.

786. Mrs M Bradley: Given what your report says about Travellers, what do you want to see in the homeless strategy about services to homelessness, local temporary accommodation and Travellers’ accommodation?

787. Mr J Brown: The Travellers situation needs to be stabilised. Until 2003, the provision of transit sites was the responsibility of councils. It transferred to the Housing Executive, and it is now proposed that it will return to councils. In GB and the Republic of Ireland, the housing authority is also the local authority. However, in Northern Ireland the housing authority is the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The template that applies in the Republic and in GB should apply in Northern Ireland; the housing authority should be responsible for the provision of Traveller accommodation. That is why we have been exercised on the Travellers issue.

788. I believe that, under equality legislation, Travellers have protection. Therefore, there is a need to make that provision stable. The current proposals do not provide stability; they put the issue back into the realm of local authorities. I made the quip that the issue of Travellers is not a vote-catching issue, and that is true. I am not sure that local authorities would give the correct weight to the provision of facilities for Travellers.

789. I do not wish to get into the area of the budget for the provision of housing for homeless people and others, because responsibility for that lies across the Housing Executive. We need to open the door to say that adequate funding must be provided for social housing.

790. Mrs M Bradley: I am really concerned about temporary local accommodation. There is a massive problem with that in Foyle.

791. Mr J Brown: I appreciate that there is a problem in the city of Derry. While the uncertainty is allowed to remain and the Housing Executive is not sure that it will be responsible for the provision, provision will not be made. It feels that that, down the road, the responsibility will go to someone else, so the agencies are playing pass the parcel.

792. The Chairperson: During the previous witness session, Supporting Communities gave evidence in support of getting tenant representation on the Housing Executive board. Do you have any views on that?

793. Mr J Brown: The Housing Council includes tenants who are elected representatives. Provision could be met to have tenants on the board. I am a former Housing Executive tenant, and, as a council representative, I am aware of the day-to-day problems that tenants face. Most elected representatives at council level are aware of the local problems that tenants face.

794. Mr E O’Neill: There is no contradiction between what we said about including elected representatives and including other members of the community in the make-up of the rest of the board.

795. The Chairperson: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your evidence. Please make contact with the Committee office about coming back on some of the other issues. We would value your input on that at another stage when we can spend more time discussing those important issues.

8 October 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Ian McCrea
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

796. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): The departmental officials present at today’s meeting are Brian Doherty, deputy director of housing; Eilish O’Neill, senior manager of social inclusion and support for people; and Stephen Martin, housing division. Members’ packs include a briefing note from the Committee Clerk, the updated ‘Including the Homeless’ action plan, and excerpts from the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy of July 2007.

797. The Committee requested today’s briefing following the review of the Department for Social Development’s (DSD) corporate plan. The information that the officials will provide is of particular relevance to the Housing (Amendment) Bill, which we have been discussing recently. The briefing will be recorded by Hansard and will be added to the evidence in the report on the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I welcome the officials to the meeting; it is good to have you here. I invite you to give a brief introduction, after which I will open the floor to members’ questions.

798. Mr Brian Doherty (Department for Social Development): Good morning and thank you. I want to point out that although I and Stephen are both wearing them, yellow ties, blue shirts and blue suits are not the official uniform of DSD; it is just poor co-ordination on our part. [Laughter.]

799. I am grateful for the opportunity to brief the Committee on the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy; or, to give it its full title:

“Including the Homeless: A Strategy to promote the social inclusion of homeless people, and those at risk of becoming homeless, in Northern Ireland."

800. With the Committee’s indulgence, I will spend a few minutes detailing some of the key actions in that strategy and how we got to where we are today.

801. The strategy, which was launched by the Minister on 9 July 2007, had the following aims: to encourage more collaborative partnership working and joined-up integrated service provision between Government Departments and agencies, to identify and tackle factors that can contribute to social exclusion and to undertake positive initiatives to improve and enhance the lives and circumstances of the most deprived and marginalised people in the community. The objectives were: to prevent or reduce homelessness wherever possible; to ensure that accessible, effective and safe provision is made for people who are homeless; and to ensure that progression to independent living is supported and encouraged wherever possible.

802. The strategy provided a unique opportunity to address the full spectrum of issues, not only in relation to housing but from the equally important perspectives of health and social well-being and sustainability in communities, and it provided an opportunity to identify actions to address problems and barriers to good practice that existed at that time. It enabled all the key players to work together to prevent homelessness and to ensure that homeless people could gain access to the services to which they are entitled.

803. An interdepartmental cross-sectoral steering group on homelessness was established to oversee the implementation of the strategic action plan. The steering group met for the first time on 1 October 2007, and it has now met on 11 occasions, most recently on 29 September 2009. The group has a broad membership, including, among others, representatives from the Department for Social Development, the Department of Education, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Simon Community, the Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Youth Justice Agency, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities.

804. I understand that Committee members have received a copy of the action plan. The plan was designed around 16 guiding principles, which were intended to clearly signpost and sharpen the focus on achieving the strategy’s aims. The steering group also established five subgroups to take forward key areas.

805. The health subgroup produced a detailed report, which outlines how existing services for homeless people in Belfast can be rolled out across Northern Ireland. In Belfast, a multi-disciplinary homelessness support team, drug and alcohol co-ordination teams and a public health nursing service all provide a co-ordinated service to homeless people.

806. The youth subgroup commissioned a regional youth homelessness scoping exercise to achieve detailed regional analysis of the nature and scale of youth homelessness and to ensure that relevant information is reviewed to identify themes, trends and issues that might better inform strategic planning. Its findings will be presented in January 2010.

807. The training subgroup considered the role of training in promoting social inclusion of homeless people. Specifically, it explored the potential for joint staff training to address stereotypes, change perceptions and focus on the cross-cutting needs of client groups. A scoping exercise was carried out to ascertain the existing training provision, to identify areas of good training practice that are already being delivered and to identify key staff who require training and the level of training that they require.

808. The subgroup on leaving institutions examined current release processes to identify weaknesses and develop proposals. It also identified institutions from which inappropriate release may lead to homelessness and examined areas of good practice around planned releases. That subgroup concentrated on the release processes of general hospitals, psychiatric institutions, residential and nursing homes, care homes, prisons and young offender centres. The subgroup was able to regularly inform the wider steering group on progress on prisoners, sex offenders, people with personality disorders, people with learning difficulties or mental-health issues and young people.

809. The employment subgroup looked at ways to improve opportunities for homeless people to enter work by building on the success of progress2work and other initiatives, such as employer partnerships, employer subsidies, and the Steps to Work and New Deal programmes, which are currently being operated by the Department for Employment and Learning.

810. In late June 2009, there were two employment seminars that set out to address employability issues in relation to the homeless and to examine the relationships that exist and that may be developed between hostel staff and managers in the Department for Employment and Learning. The seminars were very beneficial, and further engagement at local level is currently being taken forward with a commitment from the Department for Employment and Learning and hostel managers to continue to work together to ensure that homeless people can access relevant employment schemes.

811. The action plan has now progressed as far as is practicable, and a final version was endorsed at the most recent meeting of the steering group. Of the 135 actions in the plan, 90% have been significantly advanced or completed. The remaining 10% of actions either could not be started or were prevented from being taken further because of the principle of parity. Given that the significant majority of the actions have been well progressed, at its last meeting in late September 2009, the steering group decided to hold twice-yearly summits on homelessness. Those summits will facilitate ongoing cross-departmental and cross-sectoral actions and will ensure continuity as we move towards the development of a new homelessness strategy.

812. I hope that the overview has been helpful. Along with colleagues, I am happy to take questions.

813. The Chairperson: Thank you, Brian. Much work has been undertaken as a result of the action plan. How has the effect of that on homelessness numbers been measured? Have you been able to measure the number of people who have been taken out of homelessness as a result of the actions that have been taken?

814. Mr B Doherty: That is a good question, and it is one of the things that taxes us. In the past year, the homelessness figure has dropped from about 21,000 to 19,000, and when figures are produced in the near future, we expect it to have dropped again. I should point out that the homelessness strategy was not necessarily designed to reduce homelessness; it was supposed to ensure that people are given the right training and employment opportunities when, for instance, they leave institutions. I would argue strongly that, in the absence of the strategy, the homelessness figures would have been considerably higher.

815. With respect to measuring the effectiveness of the strategy, it was more about adopting preventative measures and ensuring that a joined-up approach was taken to meet the needs of people who could become homeless.

816. Ms Ní Chuilín: The updated action plan was not light reading, particularly when trying to scrutinise it, but I sense that, in the absence of it, things could be a lot worse. I have asked your colleagues about the strategic housing guidelines. Do you anticipate more people becoming homeless as a result of the removal of ring-fencing?

817. Mr B Doherty: That is a difficult question for me to answer.

818. Ms Ní Chuilín: Do you mean that you cannot or you will not?

819. Mr B Doherty: Are you talking specifically about north Belfast and Derry?

820. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, and west Belfast, because those three areas have the biggest concentration of homelessness.

821. Mr B Doherty: I will have to come back with firm figures. One could argue that, with the strategic guidelines being removed, homelessness increased in some areas and decreased in others. Removing the strategic guidelines was about ensuring fairness and equality across the board; however, at the time, the guidelines were put in place in those particular areas for good reason.

822. Ms Ní Chuilín: With respect to the Bamford review — I am sure that you are relieved that I am talking about something completely different — recent media reports indicated that an estimated 250 people who should not be living in the institutions or environments in which they are, are waiting to be housed. How will the action plan ensure that those people are housed appropriately by 2013, and can you give us an idea of how the matter is being progressed by the inter-agency group?

823. Mr B Doherty: The Department signed up to the findings of the Bamford review, as did the whole Executive. Unfortunately, when we put in our funding bid to implement its recommendations, we did not get any money, unlike the Health Department, which received a significant amount. So we have been put in the difficult situation of having to play a full and active role in meeting the needs of people to live independently, yet not having the budget to do so.

824. Approximately 14% of housing that is built or bought off the shelf each year is specifically for people who are coming back into the community. In addition, we have a supporting people budget to assist people to live independently. There is a slight issue about the fine line between what is deemed to be “care" and “living independently", and recent media reports have suggested that a number of people who are potentially coming back into the community may need community care rather than living fully independently.

825. Ms Eilish O’Neill (Department for Social Development): The action plan also mentions the group set up by DSD in conjunction with the Health Department to look at better budget alignment when bids are made for supported-living accommodation.

826. Mr B Doherty: Recently, we found ourselves in a difficult position when the Health Department announced that it was going to close a number of care facilities. Unfortunately, there had not been appropriate co-ordination with us for it to be able to say that there was housing provision in the community for those individuals. That is something that we are taking forward with the Health Department.

827. Ms Ní Chuilín: I assume that that group meets to prepare for each comprehensive spending review period. It would make sense for it to do that. Does that happen?

828. Mr B Doherty: The group has met a number of times, and Heather Cousins, DSD’s director of housing, has met her counterpart in the Health Department.

829. Mr F McCann: Thank you for your presentation. The long-awaited action plan contains a lot of information and is appreciated. I know that it was not the Department’s fault, but there was a delay in producing and launching that document, and there are concerns that it contains some out-of-date information. I take it that the Department and its colleagues will look at how the action plan can be continually updated?

830. Mr B Doherty: Absolutely.

831. Mr F McCann: One particular issue has taxed me for a while. More than half of the applications for homelessness status are turned down, and many of the rejected applicants are aged between 16 and 18. Is there anything that tracks where those people go? Do you know whether they end up on the street?

832. Mr B Doherty: I am not aware of any tracking mechanism that provides information on an individual beyond his or her application to be deemed homeless.

833. Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development): There is tracking in that head counts of rough sleepers are taken in the two main cities. Compared with other places, rough sleeping is a minor problem in Northern Ireland. However, as Brian said, there is no tracking mechanism by which we can ascertain what happens to people after they have come in and made a homelessness application. Someone who does not meet the homelessness standard will not be considered to be in housing stress but can still be considered for social housing and be placed on the waiting list. The waiting list is reviewed periodically, but we are not always aware of what has happened to those people in the interim; whether, for example, they have accepted a private-rented dwelling or made another arrangement, such as returning home.

834. Mr F McCann: It seems that a lot of young people who try to declare themselves as homeless just disappear, whether to the private-rented sector or elsewhere. A lot of those young people do not end up on the street, but some do. Head counts will not always pick up on the total number of people who are sleeping rough. It is of great concern to me that isolated young people are at a loss and have nowhere to go after they leave the Housing Executive offices having attempted to declare themselves as homeless. Regarding the delivery of services, you said that there have been 11 meetings between interdepartmental groups. Is the voluntary housing sector involved in that?

835. Mr B Doherty: Yes; the Housing Rights Service and a broad spectrum of other voluntary and community groups are involved.

836. Mr F McCann: Will those groups be involved in any updating of the legislation?

837. Mr B Doherty: Yes.

838. Mr F McCann: How are you evaluating the section on health and mental well-being to ensure that what people are being told is happening is, indeed, happening?

839. Ms E O’Neill: Our working partners from the voluntary sector and other statutory bodies who sit on the interdepartmental group suggested certain actions. Those actions formed part of the work of the health subgroup and were carried into the action plan. They are measures that the interdepartmental group felt worked and that they wanted to have rolled out as best practice. Monitoring and evaluation of the strategy will continue on an ongoing basis.

840. Mr F McCann: This Committee had difficulty in trying to get other Departments to buy into neighbourhood renewal. Have you found other Departments to be forthcoming in delivering what they have said that they will deliver?

841. Ms E O’Neill: We have been pleased with other Departments’ contributions to the interdepartmental group. They have all signed up and have been proactive in putting forward their ideas about how to progress. We have not had any problems in that regard.

842. Mr B Doherty: Having attended a number of the meetings, I know that, in many ways, it is the non-statutory participants who have kept us in check and ensured that we play a co-ordinated role.

843. Mr Craig: I will return to the issue of the removal of ring-fencing. I note that the Department is going to try to move towards an equality agenda with regard to homelessness and that a full equality impact assessment will be carried out. Will that go part of the way toward redressing what I have seen as an imbalance in the system that tends to work against what I call unionist areas? My own area, which is predominantly unionist, tends to get left behind with regard to newbuild housing and the issue of homelessness. That is probably partially due to some of the areas that have been given special treatment over the past number of years. Will the equality impact assessment redress the balance, and do you feel that the equality agenda will be better served by that?

844. Mr B Doherty: I do not think there has been an imbalance, if you do not mind me saying that.

845. Mr Craig: I do not mind you saying it, but that is what I see.

846. Mr B Doherty: There are now strategic guidelines, which will be subject to an equality impact assessment, as is required of the Housing Executive. If memory serves me well, the waiting lists probably reflect the religious breakdown of the population of Northern Ireland. The three areas in question at that time were deemed to have particular circumstances, but they will now form part of the broader process of considering housing need as a whole. Whether that redresses an imbalance that some people may see is a judgement that I would prefer to leave to others.

847. Mr F McCann: In relation to ring-fencing, is there any way that we could be supplied with a report on the religious make-up — specifically, although I hate to say it, the proportion of Protestants and Catholics — of those in hostels in areas for which funding is presently ring-fenced?

848. Mr B Doherty: It can be provided; however, my understanding is that there are now no ring-fenced areas. We could ask the Housing Executive to provide that information.

849. Mr F McCann: We could ask it to provide the community make-up of people who are in hostels at present. I know that there have been some serious difficulties and problems with the housing selection scheme. I have been raising those problems for a number of years. In areas of high demand, people stay longer in hostels because they need more points to qualify for housing. It has got to the ridiculous situation in some areas where it takes 180 or 190 points to get a flat. That certainly excludes quite a lot of the people who are on the housing list.

850. Mr B Doherty: We can provide that information.

851. Mr Brady: Thank you for the presentation. In relation to the provision of information and advice, according to the action plan, the DSD housing division has to ensure that the housing advice strategy is put in place. Do you envisage the expansion of that work to include the provision of more resources for organisations in the voluntary sector, such as the Housing Rights Service, which the Housing Executive already gives some co-funding to? There have obviously been difficulties with the proposed location of posts and the locations of advice centres. Do you envisage that eventually that will be sorted out and extra resources will be made available specifically for homelessness advice?

852. Mr B Doherty: The strategy is about making sure that there is information that is easily understood and accessible for people, rather than necessarily increasing the number of posts that would be supported by the Department. As you have recognised, the Department already provides a significant amount of money to the Housing Rights Service. I think that the current level of support is almost £750,000. It would be foolish for me to give a commitment on the Department’s behalf to consider an increase in resources given that we are in a very difficult financial climate.

853. When considering providing support — whether for the voluntary sector or any other sectors — the important thing is the sustainability of the posts. We cannot look too far forward. The advice sector strategy will address that in part. From our point of view, we want to ensure that people have readily available information on homelessness and are given advice early. For instance, in the case of people leaving institutions such as prisons, it is not a matter of waiting for them to leave but of engaging with them in a process before they reach that stage.

854. Mr Brady: I have an addendum to that point. The Department for Social Development has shown flexibility in relation to proposed lone parent legislation, around issues such as childcare provision and sanctions not being imposed. Is DSD prepared to show some flexibility in respect of homeless people having to sign on for benefits? Homeless people must sign on more often than those who are not; in some cases they have to sign or attend a local office every day. Will provision be made for the payment of benefits in hostels, where people may have particular difficulty in accessing their local social security office?

855. Mr B Doherty: That is down to the Social Security Agency.

856. Ms E O’Neill: I can give a brief update on that, because that issue was raised by the Council for the Homeless in Northern Ireland at our last meeting on 29 September. A departmental official from policy and legislation is considering what provisions might be made. Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that anything can be changed if a written agreement states that a claimant with no fixed abode must sign daily. However, that conversation took place and it is being followed up.

857. Mr Easton: The Bill provides for migrants who present as homeless to be entitled to accommodation. Will automatic entitlement to accommodation for homeless migrants not open the floodgates here? The Bill also appears to state that Travellers who present as homeless must be provided with accommodation that is sensitive to their needs. Does that mean the provision of caravans because of the Travellers’ background? Is that what we are saying?

858. Mr Martin: Some evidence on migrant workers that was presented to the Committee was, I think, inadvertently misleading. Clause 2 of the Bill states that “advice" and “assistance" will be available to all people in Northern Ireland, which includes migrant workers. However, in that context, “advice" and “assistance" means advice that is available now. Clause 2 puts a new duty on the Housing Executive and cements that responsibility, but it does not refer to the provision of accommodation. The Department has made that clear to the Housing Executive, because immigration legislation, which is an excepted matter on which the Assembly can make no variation, does not permit ineligible persons from abroad being given social housing in Northern Ireland. It is important that the Committee understands the difference between the two.

859. On the issue of Travellers, the Equality Commission has published its view that culturally sensitive accommodation should be provided. Our understanding is that “culturally sensitive" accommodation refers to sites, not caravans. Therefore, the Department took a slightly different view from that of the member.

860. Mr Easton: Could it mean sites with caravans on them?

861. Mr B Doherty: There is one example in the north-west of housing provision for the Traveller community that has been designed with tarmacadam areas on which to park caravans, rather than gardens. Therefore, if residents choose to travel for a period, they can do so. Those things, along with health and safety issues, such as lots of children running around an area that caravans or vans move through regularly, are what is meant by being “sensitive" to Travellers’ needs, rather than the provision of caravans.

862. The Chairperson: The action plan suggests trialling a rent guarantee scheme, which coincides with some evidence that the Committee received from organisations that suggested amendments to the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Will you elaborate on measures such as the trialling of a rent guarantee scheme and the duty for repossession information to be given to the Housing Executive to better inform it about potential homelessness? Should we anticipate the inclusion of a rent guarantee scheme in a further housing Bill? Such information will assist us in our deliberations.

863. Mr B Doherty: I am looking to my left and right; I am not too sure who will answer that question.

864. The Chairperson: Given the suggestion that the Committee should propose an amendment to the Bill to include rent guarantee schemes, it will be useful for the Committee to hear about that. If that is coming down the track anyway, it would be unnecessary for the Committee to suggest such an amendment.

865. Mr Martin: The rent guarantee scheme has been trialled in north Belfast and in the north-west, and it was evaluated by an organisation called SmartMove. It has been relatively successful but has been fairly expensive per intervention. Therefore, there is a question mark over whether it is sustainable on a wider basis, given the current climate. The setting up of rent guarantee schemes does not require new legislation; it can be done under the auspices of existing legislation. If there were sufficient funds to expand that scheme, that can be done without any amendments to legislation.

866. On the issue of whether information should be passed from mortgage providers and banks to the Housing Executive on potential repossession, such an arrangement is in place in legislation in Scotland, but it is being done by administrative means in Wales. We are exploring the Welsh option to see whether it is a viable alternative for Northern Ireland and whether that model can be used here, given that it can be done without legislation. That is at an early stage, but a fair bit of feasibility testing has been done on the proposal.

867. Mr F McCann: It is interesting to note that we are already talking about a future housing Bill when we have not even gone through the existing Housing (Amendment) Bill.

868. The Chairperson: We are enjoying this Bill so much that we want another one.

869. Mr F McCann: I do not understand why the Committee is thinking of introducing something down the line to address the issue of antisocial activity when the present Bill can be used to tackle that.

870. The Chairperson: Is that a comment or a question? We will take it as a comment.

871. Earlier, you mentioned that the voluntary organisations keep you in check. With that mind, will you tell us what the plans are for promoting social inclusion group and whether that group was useful?

872. Mr B Doherty: The group has been useful, particularly its subgroups. We are keen to keep the group together. Even though the action points have been well advanced, the group has agreed that it will hold twice-yearly summits, and the subgroups will hold meetings throughout the year.

873. We are also very conscious of the fact that a new homeless strategy will be put in place once the Housing (Amendment) Bill becomes law. As you are well aware, if that Bill is passed, the Housing Executive will be required to introduce a new homelessness strategy within a year. Therefore, keeping the group together will give continuity. Given that the relationships at departmental level and with the voluntary sector have been very good, we do not want to dismantle that arrangement in any way, so it will continue.

874. The Chairperson: Thank you. Your evidence has been very useful and has given the Committee a good insight into what is already going on. I thought that a homelessness strategy would be brand new, but obviously good work is already going on.

875. Clarification has been sought on different figures and numbers. That information might be useful in guiding us through the process. Are members content for the Committee to seek that information from the Department?

Members indicated assent.

876. Mr F McCann: Chairman, I did not want to hog the meeting earlier, but I wish to mention one further point. The Committee has been told that discretionary payments to supplement some rents will cover people who might have to pay additional money to landlords. My information is that the amount of money that some people get has been seriously reduced, by £25 a week in some cases. Could we ask the Department for information on that?

877. The Chairperson: Yes, we can seek an update on that.

878. We move on to consideration of suggested amendments to the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Substantive written responses were received from around 20 organisations, and the Committee has already heard evidence from 10 key stakeholders as part of the Committee Stage of the Bill. Next week, we are scheduled to hear from the Department on the Bill, and that will be followed by formal clause-by-clause scrutiny. To ensure that the process is undertaken efficiently and effectively, it has been suggested that members could, at this stage, review the evidence received to date against each clause and determine, as far as possible, the Committee’s views on possible amendments to the Bill.

879. I do not want the Committee to be put in a position in which it is taking hard and fast positions. Today’s session is to find out which amendments we support, whether further work is needed and, as is more than likely, whether further clarity will be needed from the Department next week. The Committee office has summarised all of the written and oral evidence against each of the clauses, which is in the members’ packs, along with a summary table of witness evidence.

880. Perhaps we should consider each of the sections in the table prepared by the Committee office and indicate our views on them. Members may wish to propose additional amendments that are not included in the table; if they do, that could be done as we look at the relevant clause or it could be held until the end. If members are happy with that, we will go through each section of the table. Please bear with me, as it is quite detailed.

881. Clause 1 deals with the Housing Executive’s duty to produce a homelessness strategy. Section A suggests rewording clause 1 and proposes changing the word “may", which is on page 1 of the Bill at line 8, to “shall", with regard to the duty to formulate a homelessness strategy. The Department suggested that such a change is unnecessary and would be entirely presentational. Do members have any views on the suggested change from “may" to “shall"?

882. Mr F McCann: We should go with “shall".

883. Mr Craig: We should go with “shall". Wearing my hat as a member of the Education Committee, I know that that Committee has been looking closely at the aspects of using “may" or “shall". There is legislation the length of your arm on all of that but, essentially, “shall" is more restrictive than “may". If we want to force the Housing Executive into producing a strategy, it is a much stronger term.

884. The Chairperson: There is common accord.

885. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

886. The Chairperson: The Committee is minded to change “may" to “shall", and it will take that forward with the Department.

887. Section B refers to how and how often the Housing Executive will review the homelessness strategy. The Department indicates that five years is the Housing Executive’s preference and that the associated action plan will be updated annually. Witnesses also suggested that a formal review of inter-agency working should be part of the revision process for the strategy. Do members have any views on the different pieces of evidence that were received?

888. Ms Ní Chuilín: If it is to be reviewed every three years in line with the comprehensive spending review (CSR), why not just do it every three years? Will there be a bigger financial cost involved in reviewing it every three years as opposed to every five years?

889. The Chairperson: The Department is suggesting five years. It is a matter of taking a position. It is such a fluid situation that three years may be better. If there is a resource implication — and let us face it, there is — is three years better?

890. Mr F McCann: If we consider that it took five years to produce the action plan on the strategy and that another five years will pass before the strategy is reviewed, there will be a ten-year gap in reviewing the strategy. The suggestion that Carál made would certainly allow it to be reviewed at an earlier stage. It is an ongoing process; new legislation will come in that will produce better ways of doing things. If it is left for five years, a big gap could appear between the production of a strategy and the review of it.

891. The Chairperson: I am not arguing for or against at this stage, but there is fair point to be made that is counter to that suggestion, which is that three years is quite a short period of time in which to measure any success. There is an annual action plan review, which would allow us to see some of the problems that may arise. If members feel that reviewing the strategy every three years is worth considering, we could probe the matter a bit further with the Department, to find out what the implications of reviewing it every three years may be.

892. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, certainly.

893. Mr Craig: There will be an annual review, and, by the looks of it, there will be a more in-depth internal review every three years in line with the spending rounds.

894. The Chairperson: Those could change it within five years.

895. Mr Craig: Perhaps there could be a bit more clarity around what would trigger a major review. What we are really looking at is a legislative review of the process. If, in three year’s time, something fundamental happened that would significantly affect the strategy, will it create the need for legislative change? If, in three year’s time, a complete review is needed, a five-year review period would be meaningless. Having a five-year review period suggests that the Department’s view is that if nothing else goes wrong in five years, it will be looked at again. Surely there should be a mechanism whereby, if something fundamental changed, it could be looked at much sooner?

896. The Chairperson: Maybe we need to explore whether the wording should be something like “no later than" or “up to five years" and that there are circumstances, such as a CSR, that may prompt a more substantial review than what may be done annually. We will explore that a bit further.

897. Mr Brady: Perhaps what you are talking about is a sort of monitoring process. Jonathan has said that the approach may be that if the strategy is working; great, but if it is not and is monitored on a regular basis, the problem areas can be picked out.

898. The Chairperson: If it is monitored annually and the results are looked at annually, that may function as a trigger.

899. Mr Brady: A trend may become apparent after three years.

900. The Chairperson: We will take that up with the Department next week.

901. Mr F McCann: There was a suggestion that the Housing Executive should carry out the review. Although I agree that it has some expertise, the group that contributed to the homelessness report was made up of a wide range of people from the voluntary housing sector, Departments and agencies.

902. The Chairperson: We will come to that point when we consider section F . Section C is about organisations that will be required to take the homelessness strategy into account in respect of their operations. We received suggestions from various Departments and agencies, which are listed in the paper. Does anybody have strong thoughts, one way or the other, about whether those should be included or excluded?

903. Mr Easton: I have no problem with that. Section C(i) refers to “all governmental departments" so is there any need for section C(ii)?

904. The Chairperson: It is one or the other. On that point, the suggestion has been made that all Departments should be added to the list of organisations: is that necessary?

905. Mr F McCann: The phrase “all Departments" would probably be best. If the word “some" is used, the relevant Departments would have to be listed.

906. The Chairperson: Yes; we would need to be specific.

907. Mrs M Bradley: I am happy enough for it to say all Departments.

908. The Chairperson: To say “some Departments" may make it a wee bit dubious.

909. Mr Craig: Does that negate the need for section C(ii)?

910. The Chairperson: It does. That is a separate suggestion. You can ignore it.

911. Mr Brady: The issue of homelessness already cuts across some Departments; in the areas of health and social security, for example.

912. The Chairperson: The Bill lists DSD, the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning. It could be argued that the Department of Health should be included. I suppose that its involvement will be picked up through health and social care trusts.

913. Are we happy that we want to suggest an amendments stating that all Departments should be included in that list? Or perhaps there should at least be an amendment to list more Departments than is presently the case.

914. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes. Only three are listed at present.

915. The Chairperson: Elements of other Departments are listed, such as health and social care trusts. Should the Prison Service be included?

Members indicated assent.

916. The Chairperson: Are members agreed that it should list councils?

Members indicated assent.

917. The Chairperson: Health and social care trusts are already listed; however, the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being is not. We can check with the Department whether it believes that that agency should be listed.

918. The Chairperson: Section D refers to organisations that are required to take the homelessness strategy into account. Witnesses suggested that there be enhanced compulsion, reporting and resources for those organisations and that the Bill be amended to reflect that.

919. Ms Ní Chuilín: Section D(i) states that the organisations should be:

“Compelled to implement or required to give effect to".

920. Those are two different things. Surely, it should be one or the other. I think that the difference between “compelled" and “required" is like the difference between “may" and “shall".

921. The Committee Clerk: To clarify that for members, proposed new article 6B(4) of the Bill states that:

“The inclusion in a homelessness strategy of any provision relating to action mentioned in paragraph (3) requires the approval of the body or person concerned."

922. Witnesses suggested that as the Bill is currently drafted, the organisations that were named in proposed new article 6A(5) would be let off easily, but the Bill could be strengthened to require or compel those organisations to take the homelessness strategy into account. The suggestion is to get rid of that paragraph, which states that the organisations must agree to that.

923. Ms Ní Chuilín: I understand that part; I just think that it is a bit like the “may" or “shall" issue. “Compel" is a much stronger word than “require". However, I am not going to split hairs over it.

924. The Chairperson: At present, that provision is not included in the Bill at all. You are talking about including a provision that is stronger than what is already in the Bill.

925. Mr Craig: We need to be careful. In existing legislation, there is no legal imperative whatsoever on councils to provide anything to deal with homelessness or housing. Will we be imposing a duty over and above existing legislation or legislation that might come from another Department? Can we legally force those organisations to take the strategy into account if it is not part of the legislation under which those organisations were established? We need to seek advice on that.

926. The Chairperson: We do need to seek advice. My understanding is that you cannot require an organisation to give effect to something that it cannot enact or that it can only give consideration to. For instance, 24 of the homelessness strategy’s 25 points may be irrelevant to an organisation and it cannot do anything about those, so its consideration of the strategy will be minimal.

927. Mr Craig: The legislation is specific: councils can do only what legislation allows them to do. If the legislation disallows councils to look at this and we tell them that they must look at, it is almost like a legal contradiction.

928. Ms Ní Chuilín: Councils do not have any responsibility for homelessness. However, under the review of public administration, councils will have responsibility for some aspects of housing, but if homelessness is not part of that duty, it will not affect them. We are talking about one body in an amalgamation of many.

929. Mr Craig: Do not get me wrong; I think that it is a good thing, but we need to take some advice on it. The wording will have to tie in with whatever new legislation comes through on that.

930. The Chairperson: Perhaps we should suggest the amendment and see how it fits in.

931. Mr F McCann: Councils would relish the idea of having an input, especially if it will determine the outcome of a homelessness strategy.

932. Mr Craig: Some would relish that idea, but some would not. I would be happy enough with it.

933. The Chairperson: We can make our suggestion and see where it goes.

934. Section D(iv) recommends that the list of organisations in proposed new article 6A be provided with sufficient resources to implement the homelessness strategy. I am not sure whether any piece of legislation can guarantee that, so it is a bit of a nonsense to suggest that.

935. Section E suggests the removal of proposed new article 6B(4), which requires that the approval of organisations that are required to take account of the homelessness strategy be obtained. The terminology “into account" is significant. The organisations will not have to do anything, but, as was the case with a previous point, merely give regard to it. Witnesses have suggested that the Bill be amended to remove the requirement that organisations consent to implement the homelessness strategy.

936. The Committee Clerk: If members pursue the idea of compelling organisations to comply with the homelessness strategy, that would automatically involve the removal of that requirement.

937. The Chairperson: Sections D and E are tied in together.

938. Moving on to section F, the Bill requires the Housing Executive to consult on the strategy. Witnesses proposed that there be statutory consultees, such as the PSI steering group and others. The PSI steering group is not a statutory body and, as departmental officials indicated earlier, it cannot therefore have a statutory role. Are members content with the Department’s response? Do you want an EQIA every time that the strategy is revised? Would you like some or all of the organisations or groups listed to be statutory consultees, or other organisations to be included? Do you want the PSI steering group to be put on a statutory basis?

939. Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not think that the participants of the PSI steering group would like it to be referred to as a statutory body.

940. The Chairperson: It is against their interests for it to be classified as a statutory body.

941. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, I think so too.

942. The Committee Clerk: Members may correct me, but I recall that the Council for the Homeless talked about the PSI group being put on a statutory basis and indicated that they felt that the Bill provided the opportunity to do that. It is up to members whether they think that that would be acceptable.

943. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is one non-statutory organisation; at least two others did not mention it.

944. The Chairperson: I can see why it would not be in the interests of the PSI steering group to be included in the list.

945. Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not think that it would be in their interests.

946. The Chairperson: By its nature, it is a group that may not exist in the long term, and it would mean that we would be legislating for something that might not last.

947. Ms Ní Chuilín: Perhaps the suggestion to put the PSI group on a statutory basis is more about securing the future for one group. I do not know; I do not want to be cynical.

948. The Chairperson: It took you just over one hour to make a cynical remark — that is an improvement. [Laughter.]

949. Does anyone have any thoughts about the other organisations that are listed, such as the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) and registered housing associations?

950. Ms Ní Chuilín: Section F(v) refers to advocates, so I am happy enough with that.

951. The Chairperson: What about the requirement that the Housing Executive should undertake an EQIA and consult on the homelessness strategy?

952. Ms Ní Chuilín: It does that now, it would just be a matter of writing it down as a requirement.

953. Mr Craig: The amendment would formalise that.

954. The Chairperson: Section G summarises witnesses’ suggestions in respect of the content of the homelessness strategy. The Department has indicated that the Bill includes a requirement for the Housing Executive to provide advice to all homeless people, regardless of their immigration status. The Department also indicated that, owing to the provisions of immigration law, accommodation cannot be made available to certain groups of non-UK nationals and the Assembly has no power to extend support to those ineligible people.

955. Are members content that the Department’s response deals with the suggested amendments that are listed in section G, such as the provision of advice and accommodation for everyone, including all job seekers?

956. Mr Easton: I know that I was asking questions about the issue of immigration status and the Department is saying that we misunderstand the matter. I do not like the wording in G(ii):

“Provide accommodation for everyone in Northern Ireland presenting as homeless regardless of immigration status",

957. and in G(iii):

“Provide accommodation for all job seekers in Northern Ireland regardless of immigration status".

958. I am concerned about that wording; I do not want us to accidentally open the floodgates.

959. The Chairperson: I understand your concern.

960. The Committee Clerk: As the previous witnesses said, immigration is an excepted matter, so even if the Committee were to approve an amendment, it would not go anywhere.

961. Mr Easton: So I do not need to worry.

962. Ms Ní Chuilín: It makes no difference, Alex. Why not just agree to transferring policing and justice, and then you could sort this out?

963. The Chairperson: We would still not have responsibility for immigration.

964. Ms Ní Chuilín: Get it over and done with; get the whole lot transferred.

965. The Chairperson: There is a strange call for an independent Ulster being made.

966. Ms Ní Chuilín: I feel one coming on.

967. The Chairperson: The DSD Committee on UDI. [Laughter.]

968. Mr Craig: That does not necessarily mean that you will find agreement.

969. Ms Ní Chuilín: There is a shock, Jonathan. By the way, Simon, do you know that UDI means something different for republicans?

970. The Chairperson: Everything has two interpretations.

971. Mr Craig: Getting back to the subject, G(ii) and G(v) are interrelated. There are no legal grounds for ever adopting G(ii), and G(v) is a get-around device.

972. The Chairperson: We are jumping ahead slightly. Returning to the issue of providing accommodation for migrants presenting as homeless, do we agree that as sympathetic as we are to individual cases that come to light from time to time, our hands are completely tied on that issue? We have not investigated whether the resources to facilitate such a policy would be available, but there is no point in us doing that. Are members agreed on that?

Members indicated assent.

973. The Chairperson: In relation to G(i), are members content with the explanations that we have had from the Department? We can maybe probe a wee bit further later on, but are members happy that providing advice to everyone means that it will be provided to everyone?

Members indicated assent.

974. The Chairperson: There is no point in doing anything with G(ii) or G(iii). Section G(iv) suggests the provision of an emergency fund for ineligible homeless people to deal with circumstances such as those encountered with the Roma people. Allied to that is the point that Jonathan made about G(v), which recommends the automatic referral to social services of homeless people who are ineligible for support but who are in danger of destitution. Is that subject worth exploring? Again, there are ramifications to all of this.

975. Ms Ní Chuilín: That provision makes me think in particular about people who are losing their homes. That point is worth teasing out a bit.

976. The Chairperson: Yes; perhaps we could consider separating it from the issue of immigration status.

977. The Committee Clerk: On point G(iv) on emergency accommodation for those with immigration status issues, if I recall correctly, the detail of the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy states that OFMDFM and other Departments are devising a strategy on how to deal with that situation. I had not heard about that before; it is buried in the detail of that strategy

978. Ms Ní Chuilín: Do they know that? [Laughter.] Sorry, that is my second cynical comment.

979. The Chairperson: That is your second strike.

980. The Committee Clerk: The answer, therefore, is for the Committee to seek further information from the Departments on the development of that strategy. That might colour members’ views on whether that wording should be included.

981. The Chairperson: We must bear in mind that there is no point in legislating if actions are already being taken. We can explore that more.

982. Section G (vi) refers to a review and progressive elimination of priority need status. Are there any thoughts on that?

983. Mr Craig: That suggestion has implications. Priority need status can be a useful tool when housing people. I would like some clarification as to what is meant by that suggestion. What are the implications of it, and what will happen if priority need status is taken away? Has that been thought through?

984. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Scheme for the Purchase of Evacuated Dwellings (SPED) is priority need at the minute. Anybody who meets the criteria for SPED meets the criteria for priority need.

985. Mr Craig: That is correct. There are massive implications hidden in that wee statement.

986. The Chairperson: I do not think that we will ultimately do anything on that matter, but we can explore it a bit further.

987. The Committee Clerk: That suggestion comes from evidence given by the Human Rights Commission. The Commission advised on the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003, as a result of which priority need status was being eliminated on a progressive realisation basis in that jurisdiction. Members appreciate that, although it is a short sentence, that suggestion would have lots of ramifications. We should ask for clarification from the Department as to what the implementation of that might mean.

988. The Chairperson: Section G(vii) concerns inter-agency protocols with the criminal justice system to help young people, women and the mentally ill. Do members have any thoughts on that? As the Committee has previously heard, that is being trialled already.

989. Ms Ní Chuilín: So would the Bill just legislate for that?

990. The Chairperson: Yes, although there is an issue around whether there is a need to legislate for it at all, if it is already standard practice.

991. Mr Craig: The question is how effectively it is being done.

992. Ms Ní Chuilín: We need protocols to make sure that it continues to be done.

993. The Chairperson: Yes, because it is not a requirement. That another point on which we need some clarity and assurance from the Department about what it is doing and what it will continue to do, rather than our suggesting a formal amendment on it. The Department is going to be busy next week. We are only halfway through.

994. Section G(viii) concerns the provision of culturally sensitive accommodation for Travellers.

995. Mr Easton: I am not totally convinced by that point. If you are homeless and you are a traveller, you obviously do not have a caravan. If the legislation states that Travellers must be rehomed on a culturally sensitive site, that does not rule out their being provided with a caravan. I do not think that we should prioritise one, extremely small, section of the community over another. Certainly, if they are homeless, they should be provided with accommodation, but such an amendment may leave the door open for us to have to go and buy caravans all over the place. I might be wrong but I am concerned.

996. Mr Brady: As someone who has worked closely with Travellers for many years, I know that the only time that people were provided with caravans was when their own caravans had been burned down. The Human Rights Commission’s presentation got to the point of the matter; it is about sites rather than the provision of caravans. There are no Traveller sites left in Newry, because all the Travellers have been settled and they do not move on anymore. They do not have far to go if they are travelling in the North; they might go to Belfast on the odd occasion, but even I do that.

997. The Chairperson: When you go for your messages. [Laughter.]

998. Mr Brady: It is more to do with the provision of sites and facilities rather than caravans.

999. The Chairperson: Those sites have already been provided.

1000. Mr Brady: Yes, because there is a statutory obligation to do so.

1001. Ms Ní Chuilín: We should ask the Department for clarification on that.

1002. Mr Brady: I do not think that they will be getting top-of-the-range mobile homes.

1003. The Chairperson: On first reading and without much first-hand experience, it could seem to be referring to caravans, but if we take it to refer to sites, that makes the issue a bit clearer.

1004. We will move to G(ix), which suggests a provision to:

“Provide accommodation and support for families who are victims of intimidation where a conviction of a family member is not tenancy related".

1005. Was that suggested by NIACRO?

1006. The Committee Clerk: Yes, it came from NIACRO. It pertains to a situation in which a family may have been forced to leave an area because of what a family member has done. It makes it a requirement to provide accommodation and support, which would get round the issue of intentionality. My understanding is that, as homelessness is currently interpreted, in that circumstance that family would be viewed as intentionally homeless. That is why NIACRO has suggested that change.

1007. The Chairperson: That is a very sensitive issue.

1008. Ms Ní Chuilín: I would like to hear from the Department on that matter.

1009. The Chairperson: I would not be overly enamoured with the idea. It is extremely sensitive.

1010. Ms Ní Chuilín: There are all sorts of scenarios that could arise. We should wait to hear what the Department has to say.

1011. The Chairperson: OK. We will move on to G(x):

“Provide free accommodation to a homeless family even where one parent is working".

1012. What is the background to that one?

1013. Ms Ní Chuilín: Was that a Women’s Aid recommendation at one stage?

1014. The Committee Clerk: I do not recall that. I think that NIACRO mentioned it in our evidence sessions.

1015. The Chairperson: We will take that one up next week as well.

1016. Ms Ní Chuilín: They are talking about means-testing there.

1017. The Chairperson: Moving on to section G(xi):

“Provide rent guarantee schemes for ex-offenders deemed ineligible for other homelessness support".

1018. We heard a bit about that in the evidence session earlier. Those schemes are being trialled. Should we seek assurance on that rather than propose a formal amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1019. The Chairperson: Section G(xii) is a suggestion to:

“Provide furnished social housing for destitute applicants".

1020. Did you want to say something about that point, Alex?

1021. Mr Easton: We need more clarification on that. Are we saying that if a person is totally destitute, not only will that person be provided with a home, but it will be fully furnished? Does that furniture belong to the tenant if he or she leaves? Can the tenant take the furniture away, or does it have to remain so that the next tenant can use it? It could be a very costly thing to do. There are many homeless people; I am not happy about that idea.

1022. Ms Ní Chuilín: It happens at the moment.

1023. The Chairperson: Crisis loans are available, and the social fund is in place to provide that sort of assistance.

1024. Mr Brady: That is the point that I wanted to make. Presumably, it is the Social Security Agency that administers discretionary social funds. That will have an impact because if, for instance, a person had already borrowed up to their maximum, that would create unfairness for other people who are in the same position but who cannot get any more help and are not regarded as “destitute". Some people can get furniture, whereas others who are in similar positions cannot because they are on benefits or on a low income. That has to be clarified.

1025. Mr Craig: I agree with Mr Brady. I see the potential, not for abuse, but for the emergence of equality issues.

1026. Mr F McCann: The social fund already covers much of that. Even in the private rented sector, there is a difference in price between furnished and unfurnished accommodation.

1027. The Chairperson: That is a fair point. We will seek greater clarity on that.

1028. Section G(xiii) is:

“Develop and publish inter-agency protocols to identify gaps in provision and set out out-of-hours response procedures."

1029. Is that an issue that must be legislated for, or should we just seek assurance that it is done or will be done?

1030. Ms Ní Chuilín: It needs to be legislated for.

1031. The Chairperson: We can test that by asking how the Department proposes to do that and then make our own judgment as to whether that is valid.

1032. Mr F McCann: There are some difficulties with a persons who leave home on a Friday evening but cannot declares themselves as homeless until Monday morning, so other agencies have had to pick that up. Over the weekend, people may find themselves put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation or having to stay elsewhere until Monday morning comes. That provision would bridge that gap.

1033. Mr Craig: It is something that needs explored. I have come across that problem. If someone walks into a Housing Executive branch at 5pm on a Friday, dear help him, for his timing is atrocious. Do we need to legislate and force the Housing Executive to provide a better service?

1034. The Chairperson: We can tease that out further.

1035. Mr Brady: Someone may become unintentionally homeless at 4.00 am as a result of domestic circumstances. It may be a case of domestic violence and the PSNI may be involved, but it is not within the PSNI’s remit to provide for such people. There is no one to direct people or tell them where to go.

1036. The Chairperson: Finally, on clause 1, section H refers to priority need status to be accorded to 16 and 17 year-olds. In view of the Department’s response and following the evidence from last week, there may be no need for such an amendment, if the provision that is there is passed through. Or am I wrong in that?

1037. The Committee Clerk: It is a statutory rule, and the Department has indicated where it currently is. Members could decide that they are content to wait for that, or they could ask to have the legislation amended accordingly.

1038. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is this not with the Executive at present?

1039. The Chairperson: Yes, it is.

1040. Ms Ní Chuilín: We can park it until next week, and find out what has happened with it.

1041. The Chairperson: That is right. There is no need for us to comment. It is already being dealt with, we need do nothing.

1042. Mr F McCann: That was raised by a number of us.

1043. The Chairperson: It was, yes.

1044. The Chairperson: Clause 2 refers to the Housing Executive’s duty to provide homelessness advice. Its provisions are similar to those in clause 4.

1045. I remind members that the Committee has not suggested these amendments; others have suggested them to us. Section I suggests an amendment:

“That additional wording be added to require the Housing Executive to:

i) Consult upon the Homelessness advice; and

ii) To review the Homelessness advice regularly."

1046. That seems more than fair. Shall we take that suggestion forward?

Members indicated assent.

1047. The Chairperson: In section J, witnesses suggest that the homelessness advice be required to comply with plain English and be available in other formats. If only legislation would compile with plain English.

1048. Ms Ní Chuilín: Absolutely.

1049. The Chairperson: That will come up again when we look at clause 4. We can probably agree on it, but we will bring it up again at that stage.

1050. Section K includes a suggestion for the rewording of clause 2 to set out the Executive’s duty, rather than power, in prescribing homelessness advice, as section A did with clause 1. We are just making it more robust. Do members support that suggestion?

Members indicated assent.

1051. The Chairperson: Finally on clause 2, we will deal with section L. It was suggested that the advice should not be limited to homelessness matters but should include other housing-related issues. I would imagine that other housing-related issues would be included in homelessness advice anyway, so there should be no need to legislate on that.

1052. Mr Brady: The witnesses at the previous Committee session spoke about the potential for joint staff training. Part of the difficulty is that a lot of statutory organisations have tunnel vision and only deal with their own particular area. Homelessness advice should include matters such as the social fund.

1053. Ms Ni Chuilín: It does not.

1054. Mr Brady: No, it does not. It depends on the person who you are dealing with, because some people simply do not pass that information on. It needs to be legislated for. If it is not in legislation it will not be done.

1055. The Chairperson: We will discuss some of the detail and the type of advice later.

1056. We will move on to discuss clause 3, which makes a specific change to the eligibility for housing assistance. The first lot of suggested amendments are outlined in section M, which includes the suggestion relating to advising failed applicants of their rights of appeal and of relevant contact information. Do Members support that proposal, although not necessarily as an amendment to clause 3?

1057. Ms Ni Chuilín: Is that the clause stating that the words “a person" should replace the words “an applicant"?

1058. The Chairperson: That is correct.

1059. The Committee Clerk: Members will be aware that witnesses suggested that information be provided in other languages and formats in relation to a number of clauses, not only clause 3. If members were to support the proposed amendment, it might appear not only in clause 3. For example, later in the Bill there are references to repossessing introductory tenancies and that kind of thing. The Committee could take a general view that, where a decision has gone against an applicant, the applicant should automatically be advised of their rights to appeal, that that advice should be made available in appropriate formats and that there should be contact details for someone in the Housing Executive, perhaps in a couple of different languages. It would be something standard throughout the different parts of the Bill.

1060. Mr F McCann: I take it that the change from “applicant" to “person" is just putting a human face on the people who are being dealt with.

1061. The Chairperson: It is actually the reverse. The proposal is to substitute “a person" for “an applicant". What is the purpose of that change?

1062. The Committee Clerk: The background to that change is that it is about people who apply for accommodation. The Department explained that, if the behaviour of an applicant was such that the Housing Executive did not want to give them accommodation, depending on where that person was in the current application process, the Housing Executive could find that it was not able to disqualify them from the accommodation allocation process. The proposed amendment would remove that problem. It would mean that, at any stage in the process, if a person’s behaviour is inappropriate, the Housing Executive could exclude them from getting accommodation. That would be in relation to quite serious matters. I am not sure that witnesses’ proposals about getting information and the right of appeal necessarily fit well with that clause, but that is what was said.

1063. The Chairperson: Are members happy to take forward the proposed amendments outlined in section M, although perhaps not as amendments to this particular clause?

Members indicated assent.

1064. The Chairperson: Section N outlines a suggestion to require the Housing Executive to publicise its translation services. Again, legislation may not be required for that, because of the protocols and policies that are already in place, and it may be something on which the Committee may wish to seek assurance and clarity, rather than proposing a formal amendment to the Bill.

1065. Mr F McCann: Whether or not the Housing Executive publicises its translation services may be down to the work of different individual at any given time. However, if there were a requirement in the Bill for the Housing Executive to do that, it would have to do so on an ongoing basis.

1066. The Chairperson: OK. The suggestions in section O relates to eligibility and refers to the treatment of spent convictions in the assessment of eligibility. Members will note from guiding principle six of the ‘Including the Homeless’ action plan that the Department has issued guidance to the Housing Executive advising against exclusion from homelessness support for particular classes of applicant, including ex-offenders. Therefore, do Members support the proposing of an amendment, or are they content that the Department’s guidance on that issue is sufficient, as it does not exclude ex-offenders?

1067. Ms Ní Chuilín: There was a judicial review on that issue several years ago. Therefore, the Housing Executive cannot exclude ex-offenders from homelessness support.

1068. The Chairperson: The guidance tidies that up, so such an amendment is not needed.

1069. Ms Ní Chuilín: As far as I know, that is the case: it cannot exclude ex-offenders from homelessness support.

1070. The Committee Clerk: I think that what the Chairperson is saying is that the Department has issued guidance on this —

1071. The Chairperson: You are my translation service. [Laughter.]

1072. The Committee Clerk: Yes; sorry, Chairman. Are members content with the guidance issued by the Department, or do they want to see something in the Bill that would compel the Housing Executive to be consistent with its treatment of ex-offenders?

1073. Ms Ní Chuilín: I want to see something in the Bill.

1074. The Chairperson: What is the view of the rest of the Committee on that? If guidance is being adhered to on the basis of a legal case —

1075. Ms Ní Chuilín: Even if that is guidance is referred to in the Bill, it will not make the Housing Executive do anything differently from what it does currently. The Committee could get clarification on that point in next week’s meeting.

1076. Mr F McCann: The use of the term “guidance" again leaves it to the individual to make the decision. If that requirement were included in the Bill it would copper-fasten that requirement.

1077. The Chairperson: That concludes the Committee’s discussion of clause 3 of the Bill.

1078. The Committee will now move on to discuss clause 4, which refers to the Housing Executive’s power to prescribe homelessness advice. The suggested amendments in section P refer to the nature and standard of the homelessness advice provided by the Housing Executive. Some of the proposed changes such as staff training are covered in the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy action plan. Therefore, do members think that it is necessary to propose an amendment to the Bill? There is quite a lengthy list of suggestions in that section, and I wonder whether the legislation needs to be so specific. How are those provisions outlined in the Bill at the moment? Are they not so specific?

1079. The Committee Clerk: No, they are not so specific; the Bill basically states that there will be advice. The reason that there are so many suggestions is that the witnesses suggested that the advice should be better prescribed than it is in the Bill as currently drafted.

1080. The Chairperson: Does the Committee think that it needs to be so specific? If so, we can go through the list in section P, or do we feel that the advice could be better developed as part of a strategy?

1081. Mr F McCann: Could we find our own form of words?

1082. Ms Ní Chuilín: When we were discussing another clause, we said that it was not just advice about homelessness, but that advice should be about other matters. That could include everything in section P and more.

1083. The Chairperson: My concern is that if the Committee goes through these various suggestions, we will be beginning to draft the advice before a strategy has been devised and the cart would be going before the horse. A strategy must be developed first, and a decision should be made on what the elements of advice should be after that. By proposing such an amendment, the Committee would almost be prejudging the outcome of the strategy.

1084. Mr F McCann: On a number of issues that the Committee has dealt with, such as the mortgage relief scheme, we have found that in 80% of cases, advice was crucial. Advice plays an important role in all aspects of housing.

1085. Ms Ní Chuilín: Section P(v) is a catch-all suggestion that would place:

“A requirement for the Department to produce a Code of Guidance to ensure consistency and transparency in respect of homelessness advice and decision-making".

1086. If that refers to all advice and decision-making, that is fairly specific. Fra is right; many people, both in the Committee and outside it, have a good idea of what the issues are. However, other issues could emerge. If we are prescriptive before the protocols are completed, I am afraid of our hamstringing the legislation.

1087. The Chairperson: If the Bill prescribes 10 areas, nobody will ever go any further. They will not step outside that. Being prescriptive can be detrimental. It is probably best to keep it general at this stage.

1088. The Committee Clerk: To cover all bases, perhaps the way forward is to explore with the Department how much of that could be covered in secondary legislation. We could explore the possibility of the Committee providing an input or giving a view on the advice at the secondary legislation stage.

1089. The Chairperson: We are keen to provide an input on the type of advice. However, the Bill is not necessarily the right place to specific that, as it could be restrictive.

1090. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will we raise that matter with the Department next week?

1091. The Chairperson: Yes, we will.

1092. Clause 5 refers to the review of homelessness decisions. Section Q shows that evidence from witnesses included suggestions about information on homelessness decisions. Do members believe that the Bill needs to be amended to ensure that homelessness decisions are made available in other languages with information on the appeal mechanisms? That is similar to a previous point.

Members indicated assent.

1093. The Chairperson: We will explore the need for an amendment on that.

1094. Moving on to Q(ii), are members happy to propose that clause 5 should be amended to include procedures and the timescale for appeal?

Members indicated assent.

1095. The Chairperson: Those are all matters for exploring, rather than necessarily proposing amendments on.

1096. Section Q(iii) suggests that clause 5 should be amended to ensure that officers who are involved in decisions are not involved in appeals. I hope that that is the case anyway. It is worth exploring such issues, although amendments may not necessarily be required to deal with them.

1097. Ms Ní Chuilín: From a common sense approach, I assume that some of those elements already exist. However, I know of cases in which the people who have heard cases have also conducted the appeal.

1098. The Chairperson: Section Q(iv) states that appellants should have a right of representation at an appeal.

1099. Mr Easton: I am concerned about that proposal. Does it mean that we will have to pay to send a legal representative?

1100. The Chairperson: I assume that the right to representation is covered in basic human rights legislation. However, I am not an expert.

1101. Mr Brady: Legal aid is not provided for an appeal. Therefore, appellants have to pay for legal representation themselves.

1102. The Chairperson: The Department will provide clarity on those points. Most of them are basic rights that people would have in such a scenario.

1103. Ms Ní Chuilín: You are becoming more like Enoch Powell, Alex; I am beginning to worry about you.

1104. The Chairperson: That is a compliment; that will be in his election literature.

1105. Mr Easton: You have just secured me a couple of thousand votes. [Laughter.]

1106. The Chairperson: The next few sections are related, so I will deal with them together. On the basis of evidence from witnesses, section R suggests that the Housing Executive should be allowed the discretion to provide temporary accommodation during an appeal; section S suggests that the Housing Executive should be required to provide temporary accommodation during an appeal; and section T suggests that there should be clarity on when temporary accommodation will be provided to appellants. Do member support sections R or S; that is, should the Housing Executive have discretion on the matter or should it be required to provide accommodation to appellants? Or do members support the suggestion in section T, which is to combine either discretion or requirement with greater clarity? I am open to members’ opinions. There are practical ramifications of this decision.

1107. Mr Craig: How practical is the suggestion?

1108. Mr F McCann: I thought that, at present, the Housing Executive is obligated to find accommodation for people. There are some classic cases of that.

1109. Mr Craig: We may want to explore what is being done around that.

1110. The Chairperson: Again, if it is being done already, there is no need for an amendment. More clarity might be needed, but we can explore all the options.

1111. The Committee Clerk: Section R is a suggested amendment from the Housing Rights Service, and the wording is lifted from its submission. I think that the right thing to do is find out what current practice is, then members can decide whether it needs to be legislated for.

1112. The Chairperson: Section U refers to a specific amendment proposed by NIACRO. It proposes that the deadline for a request to be lodged should be 28 days and not 21 days.

1113. Mr Brady: That brings it into line with social security.

1114. The Chairperson: NIACRO may know that that is standard procedure. However, perhaps we can check next week why it had been a 21-day period.

1115. Mr Brady: I think that that was arbitrary; 28 days is the norm.

1116. The Chairperson: Perhaps it was a case of pick a number. We can go back to that.

1117. Clause 6 concerns the power to obtain information from housing associations. Witnesses suggested that the Bill be amended to clearly set out what type of information the Department would be able to obtain from registered housing associations. As those powers merely bring Northern Ireland into line with GB and provide transparency for housing associations, are members content with the unamended version of clause 6?

1118. Mr F McCann: What information would the Department be able to obtain?

1119. The Chairperson: Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) has asked for clarification on data protection issues and for a definition of the type of information that could be obtained.

1120. The Committee Clerk: The background to that clause is that in Great Britain there were some housing associations that got into financial difficulties. There is no suggestion of that happening, in any shape or form, in Northern Ireland. However, the Department is keen to bring itself into line with GB. Financial information on housing associations is the sort of information that could be obtained, to see where the money is.

1121. The Chairperson: We will leave clause 6 as it is. There are no suggestions for amendments to clause 7.

1122. Clause 8 refers to mismanagement of housing associations. Section W refers to witnesses’ suggestion that the Bill be amended to set out the circumstances under which the Department will intervene in housing associations. In common with the previous clause, that is to bring us in line with best practice in GB and to provide transparency. Are members content to leave clause 8 as it is?

Members indicated assent.

1123. The Chairperson: Clause 9 concerns the abandonment of introductory tenancies. Section X outlines witnesses’ suggestion that the Bill be amended to allow introductory tenants to have the same rights of appeal as secure tenants. As that proposal would, to some degree, negate the intention of the clause, are members happy to disregard the proposed amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1124. The Chairperson: The proposal in section Y came from NIACRO. However, there is a question mark over how valid the suggested amendment is, in that introductory tenants have six months in which to appeal a decision in respect of repossession. Is that provided for in the Bill?

1125. The Committee Clerk: It is.

1126. Mr F McCann: Does the Bill state that there should be a 14-day period? That seems a bit confusing; 28 days is usually the norm.

1127. The Committee Clerk: I could not find reference to a 14-day period in the Bill. I think that there has been a mistake.

1128. The Chairperson: We can clarify that with NIACRO and explain the situation. It might withdraw its suggestion as a result of that.

1129. Section Z is drawn from a witness questioning the wording of proposed new article 19B(4)(b), which includes the word “secure". The Department’s response indicates that the clause will not adversely affect the rights of secure tenants. Are members happy with that explanation and happy to, therefore, disregard the proposed amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1130. The Chairperson: If nobody has anything more to say on clause 9, we will move to clause 10.

1131. Clause 10 concerns antisocial behaviour. Witnesses suggested that, in addition to the publication of Housing Executive policies and procedures in relation to antisocial behaviour, the Bill should be amended to require the Housing Executive to consult upon those policies. What do members think of that?

1132. Mr F McCann: I think that it is essential.

1133. The Chairperson: Are members happy enough to take that forward?

Members indicated assent.

1134. The Chairperson: Section AA(ii) is a suggestion requiring the Housing Executive to draft, consult upon and publish a statutory code of practice for all social landlords in relation to antisocial behaviour.

1135. The Committee Clerk: That refers to the Housing Executive producing a code of practice for them. If members recall, NIFHA indicated that it would publish its antisocial behaviour policies, but it did not want the powers to be really prescriptive. That amendment would create a code of practice that housing associations could use in developing their antisocial behaviour policies.

1136. The Chairperson: Who suggested that?

1137. The Committee Clerk: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson; I cannot remember. It might have come from the Housing Rights Service.

1138. The Chairperson: Does that fall foul of what housing associations were saying about being prescriptive about what is included?

1139. The Committee Clerk: It could be interpreted in that way. Looking at the other suggested amendments, that would be the easier version, or the less onerous. For example, section AA(iii) suggests requiring them to publish their policies. They could be required to produce policies that comply with the code of guidance, and that could be one level of compliance. Another level of compliance would be to get them to do that and for those to be published. It depends on how important the Committee views the issue as being.

1140. Mr F McCann: Although they said that they would publish it —

1141. Ms Ní Chuilín: There is an issue of “may" and “shall" here.

1142. Mr F McCann: We are instructing the Housing Executive to publish its antisocial behaviour policies, and it should be the same for housing associations.

1143. The Chairperson: I agree. I think that we should. It is an omission to leave them out. With the increasing number of people in housing association properties, it stands to reason that —

1144. Ms Ní Chuilín: It almost assumes that people who go into housing association properties are never antisocial and that the associations will never have to deal with that problem.

1145. Mr Craig: Not a bit of it: I could give plenty of examples to the contrary. There must be equality of treatment. We cannot be seen to treat the Housing Executive and housing associations differently. We need to chase up that aspect.

1146. The Chairperson: Are members happy with AA(iii), which requires all social landlords, including housing associations, to publish their antisocial behaviour policies? To go back, should those be drafted and consulted on in a statutory code of practice, as the Equality Commission suggested? Or are members content that they are just published?

1147. Mr Craig: It is worth investigating.

1148. The Chairperson: We will investigate it further. Publication may be enough.

1149. Section AA(iv) requires the Department to review the means of reducing antisocial behaviour.

1150. Mr F McCann: Again, we do not know what that means. It could mean anything. Jonathan is right: many communities have said that the way that antisocial behaviour is dealt with at present leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the connections with communities.

1151. The Chairperson: As a suggestion, it is a bit unclear.

1152. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is too woolly.

1153. The Chairperson: It is. We are not best fussed about that.

1154. Section AA(v) requires that clause 10 be amended to require the Housing Executive and other social landlords to maintain a register of tenants evicted for antisocial behaviour. I am not sure about that. That suggestion came from the Landlords Association. I am not sure of how practical that is.

1155. Mr Brady: It is not practical, but a problem does exist. Someone who is causing trouble to a neighbour could move out of a Housing Executive house and move in on the other side because that house was advertised privately. The landlord would not know that the tenant had been accused of antisocial behaviour.

1156. Ms Ní Chuilín: Once an anti-social behaviour orders is processed through the courts or after an eviction process has been undertaken, that becomes public knowledge. I have heard people say that because of data protection, such a registry could not be created. However, once that information is in the courts, it is public knowledge. Many instances of antisocial behaviour are not brought to court.

1157. Mr Brady: Antisocial behaviour is not dealt with in court.

1158. Mr Craig: There is merit in looking into the matter. The introduction of a register would create a legal minefield.

1159. The Chairperson: There would be human rights issues involved with such a register. For example, would people remain on the register for life?

1160. Ms Ní Chuilín: Fair enough.

1161. Mr Craig: Do we really want to create a blacklist that would snooker people for the rest of their lives?

1162. The Chairperson: Even if they are badly behaved, people have to move somewhere else. A register would potentially prevent those people from moving.

1163. Mr F McCann: That is a big debate for another day.

1164. Ms Ní Chuilín: An entire family may be denied the right to live somewhere because of the actions of one individual.

1165. The Chairperson: I am not fussed on the idea.

1166. Mr Brady: When we were in Boston, the rule was: three strikes and you are out. People were put in a furniture van and driven over the state line.

1167. Mr Craig: People here may be shocked by such an approach. [Laughter.]

1168. Ms Ní Chuilín: Jonathan is thinking about taking a load of people from Lisburn city and dumping them in Belfast.

1169. Mr Craig: I will not comment on that. [Laughter.]

1170. The Chairperson: Fra, will you return us to a sensible discussion?

1171. Mr F McCann: I want to make a point about the duty of care. There is often no sharing of information between the Housing Executive and housing associations in the cases of individuals or families who may have been involved in antisocial activity. Sometimes, the first that a community or residents association is aware of such a family is when they have moved in next door. The lack of information sharing has caused untold problems. The Housing Executive has said that it finds it difficult to get information from housing associations when such moves occur.

1172. Ms Ní Chuilín: We need to talk to the Department about the matter.

1173. The Chairperson: We all have experience of such cases, and we are all aware of the problems that have been outlined. If it were an easy nut to crack, it would have been done before. I am pretty sure that the introduction of a register is not the way to solve the problem.

1174. Mr F McCann: There was some indication that housing associations are reluctant to share information.

1175. The Chairperson: We will talk about that further, but I do not think that the proposal for a register has legs.

1176. Section AB is a proposed amendment that would require the Housing Executive to review its management of antisocial behaviour issues and consider the provision of additional resources, including the establishment of community housing companies.

1177. Mr Craig: What does that mean?

1178. Ms Ní Chuilín: Exactly.

1179. The Committee Clerk: The idea is that the Housing Executive would transfer its stock to community housing associations, thereby giving ownership to communities. Studies in other countries have shown that that reduces antisocial behaviour.

1180. The Chairperson: The proposal would move Housing Executive stock wholesale to various companies or local housing associations, but that is a discussion for another day.

1181. There are no suggested amendments to clause 11, so we move to clause 12. It relates to the Housing Council’s representation on the Housing Executive board.

1182. Ms Ní Chuilín: For God’s sake.

1183. The Chairperson: Please be temperate in your comments about our Housing Council colleagues. [Laughter.]

1184. Section AC proposes that clause 12 be amended so that the number of Housing Council members on the 10-member Housing Executive board should not be limited to four. I think that there is some logic in that. Witnesses also suggested that clause 12 be amended to include tenant representation on the Housing Executive board. What are members’ thoughts on those suggested amendments?

1185. The Committee Clerk: There are currently four Housing Council members on the Housing Executive board. That amendment would make the number of Housing Council members on the Housing Executive board four or more, subject to the Minister’s discretion.

1186. Mr F McCann: The Housing Council is looking for control of the board.

1187. Mr Craig: For clarification, what is the total number of members on the board?

1188. The Chairperson: Ten members sit on the board. The case that was put forward is that the majority of members on the Housing Executive board should be elected in the same way as the majority of members on boards of the health authority, the Library Authority and the education and skills authority. I do not know whether that will be done through the Housing Council or not; however, I think that that is proposal. The Bill proposes that just four board members of the Housing Council should sit on the board.

1189. The Committee Clerk: However, the Housing Council has said that four or more of its members should sit on the board, at the Minister’s discretion. Its view is that the majority of board members should be elected.

1190. Mr Craig: Let me get this straight: the elected representation of the Housing Executive board is going to be drawn from the Housing Council?

1191. The Chairperson: That it how it is done at present and that is how it will continue.

1192. Mr Craig: So, the dinner club is going to dictate who the elected representatives are?

1193. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is bad; that is even more cynical than what I said.

1194. I support the idea of tenant representation on the board.

1195. The Chairperson: There is a very strong case for the proposal for tenant representation. It is worth exploring how that can be done. Elected members seem to be the gift of the Housing Council. However, I do not know who tenant representation would be the gift of. Is the Committee positive about exploring further the possibility of tenant representation on the board?

Members indicated assent.

1196. The Chairperson: Does the Committee think that Housing Council members on the board should be limited to only four, or that there should be four or more Housing Council members on the board at the Minister’s discretion?

1197. Ms Ní Chuilín: I think that we should leave it as it is.

1198. Mr F McCann: I do not have difficulty with elected members being on the board; however, who will be removed from the board to make way for that? Will the number of members be extended to 11 or 12 to account of that? There is someone on the board representing the disability sector, so that would be five members accounted for. I do not know whether someone represents the trade unions.

1199. The Chairperson: I think that that is entirely at the Minister’s discretion. We will think about the issue a bit more and come back to it. Members are probably supportive of the idea of increased elected representation. Perhaps the issue is the method that is used to appoint members; however, I think that that ship has sailed.

1200. No amendments have been tabled to clause 13. Clause 14 refers to the definition of a house in multiple occupation (HMO). Witnesses suggested that the clause stands apart from the Bill. The clause changes the definition of family to include uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces and allows homes in which three members of two families live together to be excluded from the HMO definition. Do members want to remove the clause or amend it to allow the extended family definition to be included? We can suggest that it be removed and that further consultation be undertaken to get a better definition.

1201. Mr F McCann: The voluntary housing sector and others seem to be fairly interested in this. I know that we are putting together a consultation document. The Scottish definition seemed to offer a good way forward; however, hearing some of the problems that may be caused leads me to think that it should be looked at again.

1202. The Chairperson: Do we want to throw it out and suggest that it be looked at again in its entirety, or is the Committee happy with the partial approach of not accepting the definition that is restricted to three members of two families and requesting a wider definition of a family?

1203. Ms Ní Chuilín: We definitely need a wider definition of “family".

1204. Mr F McCann: What would the legal standing of that, were it to go to court?

1205. The Committee Clerk: I will take advice, but I think that uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces will meet the recommendations that the judge gave when he decided that the definition of “family" was not good. The Committee can explore that with the Department.

1206. The Chairperson: Members seem content to keep the wider definition. We are not saying to throw the whole thing out, including the wider definition of family, but we do not at this stage accept the stipulation of only three members of two families, which we can discuss with the Department.

1207. There are no suggested amendments for clauses 15 to 19. We move now to proposals that have been made that are not related to specific clauses. Section AF deals the use of “intentionality" in the assessment of homelessness, and proposes an amendment to:

“Remove the requirement for the Housing Executive to consider whether an applicant is intentionally homeless".

1208. Do members support that proposal?

1209. Ms Ní Chuilín: Did that proposed amendment come from NIACRO?

1210. Mr F McCann: Both AF(i) and AF(ii), to:

“Require the Housing Executive to re-interpret intentionality in respect of ex-offenders",

came from NIACRO.

1211. The Committee Clerk: As members have indicated, NIACRO raised the issue of intentionality. I think that the Human Rights Commission did so as well. Under current circumstances, an ex-offender coming out of prison would be viewed as intentionally homeless. Therefore, he or she would be ineligible for certain types of accommodation support. However, members are aware that the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy indicated that guidance on that matter had been issued by the Department. The Committee’s view might be that more guidance is needed and that the issue should be explored with the Department, or that intentionality should go.

1212. The Chairperson: I think that the Committee will explore it a bit more, rather than just dismiss it.

1213. Mr Craig: We must be very careful. If it is removed completely, the system is left open to abuse, which some people would exploit.

1214. The Chairperson: Given the circumstances, guidance may be better.

1215. Mr F McCann: Some decisions on intentionality cause great concern.

1216. Mr Craig: Yes, they beggar belief at times. Perhaps that is when more detailed guidance is required.

1217. The Chairperson: To speed business along, I suggest the Committee explore with the Department next week the expectations and ramifications of all of section AF: “That clauses be added to the Bill which: i) Remove the requirement for the Housing Executive to consider whether an applicant is intentionally homeless;

ii) Require the Housing Executive to re-interpret intentionality in respect of ex-offenders;

iii) Require the Housing Executive to re-interpret intentionality in respect of individuals returning to Northern Ireland following intimidation who have left accommodation in GB;

iv) Require the Housing Executive to re-interpret intentionality in respect of non-UK nationals who have left accommodation in another country; and

v) Require the Housing Executive to provide temporary accommodation while the intentionality aspects of the homelessness support application are considered."

1218. Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

1219. The Chairperson: Moving on to section AG, NIFHA suggested that the Bill be amended to require the Department to devise a code of conduct in respect of conflicts of interest for employees and directors of housing associations. Given the concerns raised by NIFHA and the difficulty in delivering procurement savings in the context of the current reported blanket ban on conflicts of interest, I think that it sensible to add that provision to the Bill.

1220. Ms Ní Chuilín: There are procurement guidelines around the purchasing of goods and services. There is no blanket ban there, is there?

1221. The Committee Clerk: NIFHA reported in evidence last week that there had been a difficulty because a cleaner with a connection to a firm doing construction work for a housing association was enough to lose that firm the contract. The federation’s evidence was that it found that really quite difficult.

1222. The Chairperson: The proposals in section AG is:

“That clauses be added to the Bill which require the Department to devise a code of conduct for the directors and employees of housing associations in respect of conflicts of interest."

1223. Are members minded to support that proposal, after clarification, if required?

Members indicated assent.

1224. The Chairperson: Section AH refers to NIFHA’s proposal for an amendment to the Bill that would allow the Department the flexibility to delegate the assessment of homelessness from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to another body. That is line with the Varney recommendations on stock transfer. NIFHA suggested that such an amendment would save hassle later.

1225. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is the same guidance that everyone is using.

1226. Mr F McCann: It could pose problems.

1227. The Chairperson: It would not necessarily result in the responsibility for assessment being transferred to other bodies, but it would allow the Housing Executive to do so if that became necessary.

1228. Mr F McCann: It could be done at some stage, if the Department, the Committee and the Assembly agree to the establishment of a stand-alone company separate from the Housing Executive.

1229. The Chairperson: It could be done at that stage, but it seems a little presumptuous to make such a provision. I do not detect much enthusiasm for that. That is no reflection on the suggestion.

1230. Section AI refers to the suggestion by the Chartered Institute of Housing for a review of the regulation of housing associations. Is legislation required for that?

1231. The Clerk of Bills: It can certainly be included in the legislation.

1232. The Chairperson: It seems a bit excessive.

1233. The Clerk of Bills: It is probably not absolutely essential, but, equally, there is nothing to stop the Committee from proposing such an amendment.

1234. The Chairperson: Legislating that regulation of housing associations should happen every five years would be restrictive and would amount to over-auditing.

1235. Ms Ní Chuilín: However, even the handbooks on tenants’ rights that housing associations use are not standardised. There are differences in rights for tenants. That is something that we need to explore.

1236. The Chairperson: We will seek an assurance on how the Department will propose to do that without our having to amend the legislation.

1237. The proposal in section AJ relates to a recent statutory rule on registered rents, which was erroneously laid by the Department as requiring negative resolution. The review of registered rents does not appear to require any Assembly procedure. Do members support the proposal that the Bill be amended to ensure that Assembly procedure be required in the future review of registered rents?

1238. The Committee Clerk: I will briefly explain that proposal. A week or two ago, a statutory rule was wrongly brought to the Committee. The Department brought it to us because it thought that the review of registered rents would require Assembly procedure. The advice was that, in fact, such procedure was not required. However, the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised me informally that that was surprising and that the Committee might wish to consider whether the review of registered rents should, in future, be automatically subject to some kind of Assembly procedure. The Chairperson has asked the Committee to consider whether the Bill should be amended to include some provision for Assembly procedure for the review of registered rent.

1239. The Chairperson: We will talk to the Department about that.

1240. Do members have any other amendments that they wish to discuss?

1241. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is there any possibility of a provision for the monitoring and regulation of landlords?

1242. The Chairperson: Are you referring to private landlords?

1243. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes.

1244. The Chairperson: There has been a consultation on that. Do we have any indication of when we might hear about that?

1245. The Committee Clerk: We anticipate that the Bill that is relevant to that will emerge in 2010. The Housing (Amendment) Bill is concerned largely with the social sector, so it might be more appropriate for that matter to be included in the next Bill, which will deal with the private-rented sector.

1246. Mr F McCann: Will that come in the shape of a Bill or through the issuing of guidance?

1247. The Chairperson: That is difficult to know. It is worth clarifying.

1248. The Committee Clerk: My expectation is that it will come in the form of a Bill before the summer of 2010, which is why the Department consulted on the matter.

1249. Ms Ní Chuilín: So, this is a tidying-up exercise and there will be a proper housing Bill next year?

1250. The Chairperson: Next year there will be a Bill on private housing. This Bill is totally focused on the social sector, whereas the next Bill will be on private housing.

1251. Ms Ní Chuilín: A lot of public money is spent on the private-rented sector.

1252. The Chairperson: Officials will be with us next week to clarify that. We will be able to test that then and clarify the position.

1253. Ms Ní Chuilín: No bother. I was just asking.

1254. Mr F McCann: The other issue that we raised last week was the housing selection scheme. That creates serious problems in areas of high demand. For example, in some areas you can get a house for 3 points and in others you may need 200 points.

1255. Ms Ní Chuilín: It takes 300 points to get a house in parts of north Belfast.

1256. Mr F McCann: The system does not allow for gradual movement within the sector. The example that I have used in the past is that people are housed in hostels for two or three years and because of the way that the system operates, they could be there forever. That is due to action taken by the Housing Executive, which I believe tries to put people out into the rent guaranteed scheme. That takes the four-year people out of hostels. However, there is quite a number of young people who went into hostels when their children were born and are still there when the child is at primary school.

1257. I have raised that issue over a number of years. The Housing Executive said that a review was carried out two years ago, but nothing has been done to tackle the problem. The fact is that with the present housing supply and the way that the housing sector is at present, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel and nothing to ease the situation. In some areas, it just gets worse.

1258. The Committee Clerk: Does the Committee wish to suggest an amendment to the Bill to provide for a statutory requirement to provide housing if applicants have a certain number of points?

1259. Mr F McCann: It would be difficult to do that. The system is flawed and it needs at least to be tweaked.

1260. The Chairperson: That is an entirely different piece of work. I do not know how you would do that at this juncture. It requires much more thought and consultation than the timescale that we have allows for.

1261. Mr F McCann: After six months, people who are housed in hostels are eligible for their hostel points, which amount to 20. However, there is only a small number of points awarded to them every year after that, and that is what traps them. If their points were increased every six months by 20, it would allow those people onto a conveyor belt to carry them out of hostel-type accommodation. It would certainly advance them a bit. If someone goes directly into a hostel, they get homeless points and an additional 20 points for being in the hostel at that start. However, 90 points, in any area, will not get someone housed. People have learnt how to use the present system, and that means that some people sit forever on 90 or 100 points. As someone said, 90 points would not get you a bench in Dunville park.

1262. The Chairperson: You can raise the subject with departmental officials next week.

1263. Mr F McCann: I will put a case together.

1264. The Chairperson: Yes. No one has indicated that they would like to add anything else.

1265. Are we happy to instruct the Clerk to update the table along the lines that we have discussed?

Members indicated assent.

1266. The Chairperson: That will take a while. The Clerk will then forward it to the Department, which will allow officials to come back with appropriate responses to the queries that we have raised.

1267. I remind Members that the Department will be represented at the meeting on 15 October to respond to the issues. Immediately after we receive the Department’s response, the Committee will undertake formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. That will take two weeks.

1268. The Committee Clerk: Are members happy that the Committee begins the onerous job of clause-by-clause scrutiny next week?

1269. Ms Ní Chuilín: We are getting the Department in next week, so will the clause-by-clause scrutiny begin next week or the week after?

1270. The Committee Clerk: I am suggesting that we start it on 15 October. If members are not keen on that, we could make it the following week. The Committee must report by 1 December, but it would be preferable if we could report before then. Do members want to begin the clause-by-clause scrutiny next week? Or do you want to ruminate on what the Department tells us and commence the clause-by-clause scrutiny the following week?

1271. Mr Brady: I will not be here next week.

1272. Ms Ní Chuilín: We will do it the week that Mickey comes back.

1273. The Chairperson: Will departmental officials be present for the clause-by-clause scrutiny?

1274. The Committee Clerk: Yes.

1275. Ms Ní Chuilín: We should get the Department in and try to make a start after that.

1276. The Chairperson: We will try to do that. We will try to get through some of the more substantial clauses next week.

15 October 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

1277. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): The next item on the agenda is the departmental response to the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Michael Sands, the deputy director of housing governance and accountability at the Department for Social Development (DSD), and Stephen Martin and Stephen Baird from the Department’s Bill team are with us to give evidence. Members have been provided with a revised cover note, copies of the latest departmental responses, including the delegated powers memorandum and an updated table of suggested amendments. Members have also been provided with the section 75 statutory equality obligations screening form for the Housing (Amendment) Bill for their consideration and related correspondence from the Equality Commission.

1278. Michael, Stephen and Stephen, you are all very welcome. Earlier, the Committee noted that it received the papers late, and I record our disappointment at that. That will impact on our work on and scrutiny of the Bill. I ask you to make your opening remarks, and, after that, we will discuss some of the issues that have been raised. We will not undertake clause-by-clause discussion of the Bill today.

1279. Mr Michael Sands (Department for Social Development): I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Housing (Amendment) Bill once more with the Committee. 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 would ensure greater effectiveness and transparency in the operation of housing-related services. Its main proposals on homelessness are the result of extensive consultation and are an important element of the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy.

1280. Members will have seen our recent written response on a number of the points that were raised by stakeholders during the Committee’s evidence sessions. I shall focus on some of those issues now, and I will be happy to elaborate on other issues when members ask questions.

1281. Clause 1 refers to a statutory homelessness strategy. Stakeholders have suggested that a strategy should be produced every three years, rather than every five years. They have proposed a range of additional bodies that should take the strategy into account when delivering their functions.

1282. The Bill provides for the Housing Executive to publish the homelessness strategy at least once every five years, with the first strategy to be published within 12 months of the Bill’s coming into operation. We discussed the idea of a three-year strategy with the Housing Executive, but it feels that that is too short a period of time to allow for proper medium- and long-term planning. Instead, it suggested that the five-year strategy be reviewed annually to take account of, for example, the outcome of comprehensive spending reviews.

1283. As for the proposal that additional bodies be listed as being required to take account of the strategy, the Department for Social Development feels that, with the exception of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS), all relevant bodies are already listed in the Bill. It is unclear why it has been suggested that councils be included, as they appear to have no role in addressing homelessness.

1284. The Chairperson: Michael, rather than waiting until the end of your presentation, I will stop you at different stages, because members may have points that they wish to raise.

1285. Mr Sands: Of course, but I shall finish that point; it may clarify some of the points that may be raised. The Department agrees that it is worth including the Northern Ireland Prison Service in its own right. At present, prisons are mentioned in the Bill in the context of the Secretary of State. As I said, the Department agrees that DHSSPS should also be mentioned specifically.

1286. Mr F McCann: You raised the issue of whether a homelessness strategy should be reviewed after three or five years. A number of witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee suggested that it should be reviewed after three years, because of the ever-changing circumstances of homelessness. I think that it may be better to do it on a three-year basis. However, I take on board what you are saying about the possibility of an in-year review.

1287. I have no doubt that there should be an interdepartmental approach to homelessness. A cross-sectoral approach was taken when the ‘Including the Homeless’ strategy was being drawn up. That is the type of approach that I think should be taken. The Housing Executive might head the review; however, the work should be carried out on a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral basis.

1288. Mr Sands: I have no difficulty with that at all. The legislation simply caps the period in which a review must be taken or a new strategy issued, by definitively stating what that period is. However, an annual review could be done without any difficulty.

1289. Mr F McCann: I think that it has been five years since the last review began. If the next review is not for another five years, it will be 10 years before anything has really been done.

1290. Mr Stephen Martin (The Department for Social Development): The Bill makes it clear that the Housing Executive has to publish a homelessness strategy within 12 months of the legislation coming into operation.

1291. Mr F McCann: Will the cross-departmental and cross-sectoral group then be brought back together to review where we are with homelessness? I am focusing on the cross-sectoral aspect because it encompasses a different approach to homelessness than that which the Departments might take. I think that such an approach added to the last strategy.

1292. The Chairperson: Does anyone else wish to ask a question on that point? Are members happy with the explanation that has been provided?

Members indicated assent.

1293. The Chairperson: Do any members wish to ask a question about the other agencies to be added?

1294. Mr Hilditch: Will Mr Sands reiterate what he said about the councils?

1295. Mr Sands: We do not really understand why councils should be included in the Bill, because they have no statutory requirements as far as homelessness is concerned.

1296. The Chairperson: Members can correct me if I am wrong; I think that the issue was raised in respect of the transfer of various functions to councils and their role in community planning in particular. Obviously, how that happens is yet to be defined. There are 11 members on this Committee, yet you could probably get 12 different definitions of community planning. There might also be a role, albeit not directly, for councils in the wider area of development, which includes housing. I think that that is why members felt that councils might be involved in some way.

1297. Mr Sands: As far as the review of the public administration (RPA) is concerned, I do not think that there is any reference in the legislation to councils being responsible for addressing homelessness. I understand that Carál Ní Chuilín has previously suggested that such a responsibility might be included in their functions. That is something that can be picked up as we approach 2011.

1298. Ms Ní Chuilín: Belfast City Council played a key role in resolving the situation with the Roma community in Belfast recently. Therefore, to say that the councils have no functions in that respect is not true.

1299. The Chairperson: Perhaps they have no statutory functions.

1300. Mr Sands: Everyone tried to help as much as possible in that instance; however, there was no statutory requirement on Belfast City Council to do so. It is a difficult issue. It is a question of whether there should be a requirement for councils to address homelessness. I do not want to force councils to take a responsibility that they will then shirk because they do not really want it.

1301. Mr F McCann: The suggestion that councils should have an input is an important one. Major changes are going on as part of the RPA, and councils are going to change. Having sat on the housing liaison committee in Belfast City Council, I know that people seek to have an input into the issue of housing. I do not think that it would do any harm if the legislation also listed councils, which represent a huge amount of people, as that would allow them to have their say.

1302. Mrs M Bradley: I sort of agree with what the officials are saying. In Derry City Council, we work closely with the local Housing Executive branches on whatever is going on in the community, but as Mr Sands said, it is not a statutory duty. It is up to the councillors on the different councils to make sure that that relationship works.

1303. The Chairperson: Before we reach any sort of position on the matter, we will ask the Committee Clerk to look at what responsibility for housing is suggested will be passed on to councils through the RPA. That will allow the Committee to take a more definitive position.

1304. Mr Hilditch: The environmental health departments in councils formulate reports to support people who have become homeless due to the unfitness of properties.

1305. The Chairperson: OK; we can come back to that issue.

1306. Are members happy with the Department saying that all relevant Departments are listed in the Bill? I take note of what the officials said about the Prison Service and DHSSPS, but is there a role for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), particularly given its overarching anti-poverty role?

1307. Mr Sands: OFMDFM would be included as far as the consultation is concerned, but we do not think that there is any need to list that Department specifically. It has its anti-poverty role and the strategy will fall in neatly with that, but we do not think that there is a need to specifically refer to that Department.

1308. The Chairperson: If members do not have any further comments on that, we will move on.

1309. I apologise to the witnesses for the stop/start approach. You may not feel it at this moment, but it should prove more effective in the end.

1310. Mr Sands: It is quite alright; it gives me a chance to gather my thoughts, as opposed to being attacked at the end. Sorry, not attacked; asked questions.

1311. It is clear from the Committee session so far that there has been some confusion over clauses 2 and 4, which relate to advice. Clause 2, which places a duty on the Housing Executive to ensure that advice about homelessness is available free of charge, is primarily intended to provide the Housing Executive with a mechanism to fund third-party providers of advice.

1312. Some stakeholders have mentioned the need for statutory guidance on the clause 2 duty. Such guidance is produced in other jurisdictions primarily to ensure consistency of approach across a large number of local housing authorities. The case for statutory guidance in Northern Ireland is less obvious, as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is the sole regional housing authority. However, the Department agrees that it would be useful for a document that sets out the minimum standards to be produced and published. Achieving that would not require any amendment to the Bill.

1313. Clause 4 gives the Department the power to prescribe and regulate the kind of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive is required to provide to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness but who do not meet the full statutory criteria for rehousing. The regulations will be subject to consultation.

1314. Stakeholders have also asked about the availability of translation and interpretation services and whether the regulations will require the Housing Executive to automatically refer ineligible persons from abroad to social services. Translation and interpretation services are widely available in the Housing Executive and are well-publicised in all main languages that are encountered by Housing Executive staff.

1315. The Housing Executive and social services are currently working together to identify the scope for improving the service for persons from abroad. The outcome of that work is likely to be reflected in the regulations. Those will come to the Committee after the Bill becomes law.

1316. The Chairperson: We had raised an issue about the translation services last week, but are members happy enough with that response?

Members indicated assent.

1317. The Chairperson: The Clerk has reminded me that the query last week was about how those translation services are publicised. We want the Department to confirm that translation services will be well publicised, particularly in respect of the homelessness strategy.

1318. Mr Sands: I assure the Committee that those services are publicised as broadly as is required, especially in areas where there are groupings of ethnic minorities. That is primarily done by the Housing Executive.

1319. The Chairperson: That is useful.

1320. Mr Sands: The Human Rights Commission and the Chartered Institute of Housing recommended to the Committee that priority need and intentionality should be removed from the assessment of homelessness. That would represent a fundamental shift in policy, and it is important that the Committee is aware of the implications of such a move. Existing housing policy in Northern Ireland is underpinned by the principle that scarce resources are prioritised to meet housing need. Removing priority need and intentionality would fundamentally erode that principle, and the Department is concerned about the implications of that for a large number of people in housing need.

1321. There are currently two routes into social housing in Northern Ireland: the homelessness legislation and the common selection scheme. Both routes feed into a single social housing waiting list that contains two groups: those who have higher levels of need and are in housing stress and those who are not. The suggested changes could give homeless applicants precedence over those people on the waiting list who apply for housing through the common selection scheme and who may be in greater or equal need. At present, although over half of people in housing stress applied through the common selection scheme, only around one third of allocations are made to people in that group.

1322. Stakeholders referred to steps that are being taken in Scotland to remove priority need and intentionality. Although that move is practicable in Scotland, it is not in Northern Ireland, for two key reasons. First, the proportion of social housing in Scotland is considerably greater than in Northern Ireland. Secondly, Scotland makes much greater use of the private-rented sector to house homeless people.

1323. The Chairperson: That is helpful and clarifies the situation.

1324. Ms Ní Chuilín: You mentioned priority need; are you talking about ring-fencing? What are you talking about specifically?

1325. Mr Sands: I meant that people who are in housing stress are considered to have a priority need.

1326. Mr Martin: The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 contains definitions of homelessness and priority need. The definition of priority need centres on vulnerability and refers, for example, to people with dependants, pregnant women and people with disabilities. People who apply for housing on the basis of homelessness are tested against two considerations: whether they are intentionally homeless, as defined in the legislation, or whether they are in priority need, as defined in the legislation. That decision is not necessarily connected to some of the other issues that have been mentioned.

1327. The Chairperson: The suggested amendment was to remove the various categories of vulnerability and assess everybody on the basis of homelessness. Correct me if I am wrong, but if priority need were removed, the most vulnerable people will not benefit.

1328. Mr F McCann: I will make a short comment because I assume that we will return to this matter. I have difficulties with how the word “intentionality" is applied to some applicants. It has been used too strictly. Quite a number of people have been refused housing and have been left without any real recourse. I have dealt with several such people, and I know that the definition that was used to assess them was too narrow. I do not know how the definition can be expanded to deal with families from England, for example. The assessment has been too strict and has led to the conclusion being reached that some people are intentionally homeless, so we have no responsibility for them and they should go back to where they came from.

1329. Mr Sands: I agree, Mr McCann. If a person becomes homeless intentionally, there is a real and absolute risk that the reasons that they cite will result in them being awarded more points than someone on the waiting list who is in equal or greater need and so, because of how the points system works, they would jump ahead of that person in the queue. It is a question of applying the provisions for the waiting list fairly. It would be unfair on some people to remove those provisions. Removing priority status could penalise some people who are on the waiting list and allow other people to jump ahead of them.

1330. Mr Burns: Mr Martin raised the issue of pregnant women. It is my understanding that pregnant women do not get any points added until the child is born. That is a big problem. A lady could be expecting and could be in tremendous housing stress but, until the child is born, she does not get any points added.

1331. Mr Sands: I take your point, although I would like to point out that I have nothing to do with pregnant women. [Laughter.]

1332. The Chairperson: I do not think that the member was suggesting that. Thomas’s point is noted.

1333. Are members content not to suggest an amendment relating to priority need and intentionality? We can come back to that if necessary.

1334. Mr F McCann: We are dealing with a common selection procedure; there may be a couple of amendments that I would like to make at some stage.

1335. The Chairperson: I will give you an opportunity at the end to raise those issues.

1336. Mr Sands: Clause 10 places a duty on the Housing Executive to publish its policies and procedures on antisocial behaviour. Some stakeholders have asked for a similar duty to be placed on registered housing associations. The Department agrees that housing associations should publish their policies and procedures on antisocial behaviour. However, it is not customary to specify the duties of housing associations in legislation. As the statutory regulator of housing associations, the Department has the power, under article 11 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, to issue guidance to registered housing associations. The Department intends to issue guidance on the publication of policies and procedures on antisocial behaviour.

1337. Mr Hilditch: This issue emphasises the importance of the council connection. In every case that I have dealt with recently, the local council has been involved. Even in getting an anti-social behaviour order served, evidence has been taken from councils in relation to Housing Executive tenants.

1338. Ms Ní Chuilín: Even though it may not be customary or standard practice for the Housing Executive to insist that housing associations implement guidance —

1339. Mr Sands: It is the Department that would do that.

1340. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is public money that is being spent. Tenants need to have the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of who their landlord is. There is no standardisation of tenants’ rights across housing associations. I would not want there to be any room for anyone to be vague or unsure about what the rules are or what their responsibilities are, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour. The legislation needs to specify the duties of the housing associations.

1341. Mr Craig: Does the Department’s guide have legal standing with the housing associations? If so, when was it last reviewed, and is there any way of involving the Committee in a review of it? That way, standards can be set for housing associations that would be equivalent to the standards that will potentially be put in place for the Housing Executive.

1342. Mr Sands: The guide is the means by which our regulation inspection teams can go out and inspect housing associations and make sure that they are looked at according to four specific categories. A review has almost been completed and is going out for consultation this week. That was more of a tidying-up exercise rather than a radical review of the guide. However, it does give us the opportunity to revise the guide and put into it the principles that relate to the Housing Executive. Certainly, we can ensure that the provisions that refer to the Housing Executive apply also to housing associations.

1343. Mr Craig: I think that we have highlighted a bit of an anomaly. Perhaps this is something that we need to take up with the Department, outside the legislation. I understand what Michael is saying; however, if the review that has been undertaken was only minor, it will probably not reflect the changes that we are asking the Housing Executive to make. It is something that needs to be looked at very closely.

1344. Mr F McCann: I thought that we were told a couple of weeks ago that some of the problems are caused by the fact that housing associations are individual legal entities, although the Department has some managerial control over them. Antisocial behaviour is an issue that hits home with everyone. If you go into an area and talk to people, the first thing that they talk about is antisocial activity. Regardless of whether the housing associations are separate entities, they should be on the same footing as the Housing Executive and should publish their procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour. I do not think that they are legally bound to do that, so there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that they are.

1345. One of the reasons I say that is because recently I asked a question to the Minister in the Assembly about trying to strengthen tenants’ hands. I was told that there are sufficient regulations in the Housing Executive’s material on antisocial behaviour to allow it to deal with all eventualities. I spoke to the police yesterday, who were surprised and amazed that that was the case. I spoke to representatives of housing associations, who said that they have particular difficulties in trying to deal with certain aspects of antisocial behaviour. There should be one regulation for the Housing Executive and housing associations. We should also consider proposing some amendments to deal with other aspects of antisocial activity because one thing that really concerns people is duty of care. Many people ask where is the duty of care for tenants who live an area in which a person who has a history of antisocial behaviour may be imposed on them. There is a lot of stuff that we need to tease out.

1346. The Chairperson: The Committee’s difficulty comes from the omission of housing associations. We do not want to see differences developing between the antisocial behaviour policies of the Housing Executive and the plethora of housing associations that do their own thing. Some people already believe that antisocial behaviour is dealt with differently among housing associations and between housing associations and the Executive. We are not suggesting that we should prescribe the format of such a policy, but we feel that having policies published by housing associations has contributed to the development of that belief. To compel the housing associations to do that would help to break down that problem. That is where we are coming from.

1347. I take on board what you said about your not tending to legislate for the duties of housing associations but, arguably, elsewhere in the legislation there are duties imposed on housing associations, as regards obtaining information. Is there scope for amending the Bill to allow for the addition of regulations relating to antisocial behaviour, so that that guidance that you are talking about comes back to this Committee?

1348. Mr Sands: I suggest that we approach the Office of the Legislative Counsel to see whether housing associations could be included in that requirement on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That would make it totally square.

1349. The Chairperson: We are content to let you do that.

1350. Mr Sands: Generally, we give regard to the guide because we need much more control of the Housing Executive because of the way in which it is funded. Its funding means that everything needs to be stipulated exactly, whereas the housing associations are given a grant for their development. We look at them with regard to their maintenance, governance, development and finance; those are the four areas of the guide that we concentrate on. However, we will approach the Office of the Legislative Council to see whether we can include a reference in the Bill to make sure that housing associations publish procedures on antisocial behaviour.

1351. The Chairperson: That would be useful and very helpful. Are members content?

Members indicated assent.

1352. Mr Sands: Clause 14 deals with the proposed change to the definition of “house in multiple occupation" (HMO). During the Bill’s Second Stage, the Deputy Chairperson raised concerns about clause 14 on behalf of the Committee. That issue has also been raised during some of the Committee’s evidence sessions. The rationale for regulating HMOs is the recognition of the particular vulnerability of individuals without any family connections who share a house. In those multi-family groups there is usually no recognised head of household, and that has been seen as bringing with it a number of additional risks, particularly in relation to health and safety.

1353. The current definition of a house in multiple occupation was an attempt to focus regulation on those at particular risk. However, in a judicial review in 2005 the judge commented that the current definition fails to recognise that an extended family living under one roof comprises a single household and that under the current definition, a couple taking in an elderly aunt could be wrongly considered as living in a house in multiple occupation and would be subject to the full rigours of the law. That was an unintended consequence of the definition, hence the definition must be corrected.

1354. The Department has set about correcting the definition in two ways in the Bill. It has widened the definition of family for the purposes of HMO regulation to include aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces, and it has broadened the definition to the one that has been used in Scotland for several years. Together those changes are designed to address the judge’s concerns and to ensure that regulation of HMOs only falls on those for whom the law was intended. However, the Minister made it clear during the Bill’s Second Stage that she remained willing to reconsider the position based on evidence.

1355. During the Committee’s evidence sessions, stakeholders identified the need for a new HMO definition and generally supported the proposed extension to the definition of family to include aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces. The Department welcomes that support. The change to the definition of family is essential to addressing most of the judge’s concerns, respecting the right to family life and ensuring that an extended family who live under the same roof are not treated as a HMO under the law, as that was never the intention.

1356. However, there has been a difference of view on the second change proposed, which is to broaden the overall definition. Concern about that change seems to centre on a perception that it could have unintended consequences for the level of protection afforded to migrant workers living in HMOs. The Department does not share that analysis, but we have heard enough during the Committee’s evidence sessions to convince us of the need to examine the issue in more detail. Although the Department is keen to continue with the change to the definition of family, we now believe that there is merit in removing the broader change to the HMO definition from the Bill and undertaking a more wide-ranging consultation on a new HMO definition.

1357. The Minister has indicated her intention to seek a Government amendment to remove the first part of clause 14 of the Housing (Amendment) Bill during its Consideration Stage. However, members should be aware that a decision to table a Government amendment is not entirely in the Minister’s gift. As the Housing (Amendment) Bill is a Government Bill, any Government amendment must be approved by the entire Executive.

1358. The Chairperson: Thank you, Michael. I think that that probably deals with the Committee’s concerns on HMOs.

1359. Mr Sands: I now turn to conflicts of interest. The Committee has heard from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations about the difficulties that registered housing associations face in dealing with the current law on conflicts of interest. The federation suggested repealing the existing law and replacing it with a code of practice.

1360. In its evidence, the federation gave the example of an association that was not able to use a particular builder because of that person’s family relationship with a cleaner in the association. In light of that, the Department is concerned that some associations are incorrectly interpreting the current legal position. The Department is clear that the existing law is needed to ensure probity and proper use of public funds; it does not unfairly constrain the conduct of proper business. The Department will, therefore, write to the federation to clarify the current position.

1361. Ms Ní Chuilín: It would be helpful if the Department could clarify that. Are you talking about the codes of conduct?

1362. Mr Sands: Yes; what we are talking about are the decision-makers in the housing associations.

1363. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is a way forward that will prevent conflicts of interest arising. However, it must be enforceable; it should not be something that is stuck on a wall that no one pays attention to.

1364. The Chairperson: Clarity would be extremely useful, and I request that the Committee be copied into the clarity that the Department gives to the housing associations. That will allow the Committee to be satisfied that there is no need for such an amendment to the Bill.

1365. Mr Sands: Yes, we will do that.

1366. I now move to the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The Department recently made the Registered Rents (Increase) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 to increase statutory and protected rents for fit properties only.

1367. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has highlighted that the power in the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 that was used by the Department to make the Registered Rents (Increase) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 does not have a form of Assembly control attached. The Department intends to discuss that matter with its legal advisers and correct that technical oversight, possibly thought an amendment to the Bill. The form of Assembly control sought is likely to be negative resolution.

1368. Those are all the points that I have to raise.

1369. The Chairperson: The Committee will want to raise other issues, including some that will have come up during your evidence. We would like clarity and assurance on some points.

1370. Will the Department comment on its policy in relation to providing accommodation for homeless families suffering intimidation, where a family member has a non-tenancy related conviction?

1371. Mr Stephen Baird (Department for Social Development): The housing selection scheme allows the Housing Executive to award points in instances of people being intimidated. The selection scheme sets out various circumstances of intimidation, such as racial harassment or sectarian intimidation. One of the categories of intimidation is “neighbourhood nuisance". That was specifically incorporated to deal with this kind of issue, where there is not necessarily a sectarian or paramilitary connection, but people in the area are threatening the family. In that kind of scenario, the Housing Executive would award intimidation points.

1372. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will allegedly antisocial families then go to the top of the list? That is how I interpret that policy.

1373. The Chairperson: That is a worry that many have expressed.

1374. Mr Baird: I take the point. Treating the family as antisocial is a different ball game. The scenario that I am referring to is where a member of a family has been convicted of an offence and that has consequently annoyed people in the area who have become upset and want the family out, so they intimidate the family. According to the rules of the selection scheme, intimidation points are available for that family. However, other aspects could kick in at that point.

1375. The legislation provides that if a tenant or a member of a tenant’s family commits an indictable offence, that gives grounds for possession. That requires a judgement call by the Housing Executive. If a family is unsuitable to remain in an area because of the nature of the offence that a family member has committed, the Housing Executive can seek an order for possession and have the family removed. It will come down to particular circumstances and the Housing Executive will have to use its judgement, but there are safeguards in place for that kind of thing.

1376. Another aspect is the talk of antisocial families going to the top of the list. Where an applicant is homeless on the basis of intimidation, some people can be intimidated as a consequence of their own antisocial behaviour. People like that would not, necessarily, make suitable tenants for the Housing Executive. Legislation allows the Housing Executive to treat an applicant as ineligible for homelessness assistance if he has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour that makes him unsuitable to be a tenant. That is another safeguard that can kick in if someone presents as homeless.

1377. Ms Ní Chuilín: How often would that be used?

1378. Mr Baird: The Housing Executive uses those ineligibility provisions quite stringently. I cannot give you numbers —

1379. Ms Ní Chuilín: I can give you numbers for my constituency.

1380. Mr Baird: I have seen figures in the past, and I think that it is fairly impressive.

1381. Mr F McCann: I will comment on the same issue, because I think that it probably goes to the heart of how we deal with antisocial activity. In many areas, antisocial activity often results in inter-family conflict. At a time when community representatives are pushing for one family to be moved — usually the family that is being intimidated by the antisocial family — the Housing Executive tends to take the course of mediation, rather than acting as you say that it does. There are some classic cases of good families who wanted to leave an area being forced into a mediation process, in a number of cases even after being attacked by an antisocial family. That makes a nonsense of what is supposed to be regulated for.

1382. The situation needs to be reviewed. It is fine for us to say that the Housing Executive possesses the powers to deal with all those cases, but it is a different situation when real cases are being dealt with. We need to look at how we can make it easier to deal with such cases. One case that I know of resulted in serious street disorder between two families, when the easiest way out, which everyone was calling for, would have been for one of the families to have been moved from the area at their request. The Housing Executive refused to do that.

1383. Mr Baird: We accept that it is the Housing Executive’s normal policy to attempt to use mediation before resorting to repossession.

1384. Mr Sands: Yes; rehousing people could simply mean moving the problem to another area.

1385. Mr F McCann: I know of an instance in which the family that was the innocent party in attacks that took place were forced to mediate with the family that led the attack on them. There is no chance of any mediation in those circumstances. That case went on and on and led to a number of attacks by both families. I am not talking about the famous case in the upper Springfield area, but about another case further down the road.

1386. Mr Sands: That is the one that I was thinking about.

1387. The Chairperson: How do members feel? That outline shows that there is legislation and policy in place. There may be a discussion for another stage, but are members content that we do not need an amendment on the issue?

1388. Mr F McCann: I understand that the Committee is going to go through the Bill clause by clause next week, and there may be a number of amendments in relation to antisocial behaviour that I would like to discuss at that stage.

1389. The Chairperson: We will have the opportunity to do that at that stage.

1390. Mr Sands: As you know, we will be available for the next four weeks to go through the Bill clause by clause.

1391. The Chairperson: I am thinking of putting your names on the seats.

1392. Mr Sands: I will not be here for two of those weeks.

1393. The Chairperson: I do not think that I have that option. We will move on, but those issues will come up at a later stage.

1394. We have had some discussion about the provision of accommodation for homeless Travellers. It would be helpful if you could again give an outline of the policy in respect of that. I know that it was outlined last week, but it would be useful in respect of the discussions that we have had.

1395. Mr Martin: A Traveller can be homeless for two reasons: either they have a caravan but do not have a legal site on which to park it, or they do not have a caravan. The Housing Executive has a statutory responsibility to provide sites under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. There have been some difficulties in particular localities with getting planning permission and local support for those, but the Housing Executive has a responsibility and is, by and large, trying to meet that responsibility.

1396. If a Traveller presents to the Housing Executive without a caravan, there is no specific, culturally sensitive temporary accommodation available, largely due to cost. A Traveller in that situation who presents as homeless to the Housing Executive will be placed in temporary accommodation similar to that which anyone else could expect. However, the options for permanent accommodation could be made more culturally sensitive. One of the options is group housing, which some members referred to last week. That involves a particular design standard for Travellers that takes account of their lifestyle; they can park their caravans and family groupings can live in a way that is different from the way that other families live. It is true to say that there is no culturally sensitive temporary accommodation available, and that is largely as a result of cost.

1397. Mr Sands: Travellers would not be treated any differently than any other person in the same position.

1398. Mr Easton: I am more reassured by what I have heard, but you have worded it in such a way that it is open to interpretation whether caravans will be provided. Can you assure me that that is not going to happen?

1399. Mr Baird: The Housing Executive will not be providing caravans; it will provide temporary accommodation as it would do for any other person.

1400. Mr F McCann: I have seen some of the group housing in west Belfast, and it is excellent. Most individuals end up in family groups, and some of the accommodation that has been provided is excellent.

1401. Mr Sands: The difficulty in trying to move someone into group housing is the non-acceptance by the families.

1402. The Chairperson: That has been helpful. Alex travelled in to ask that question. [Laughter.]

1403. Are members content that there is no need for a specific reference to Travellers?

Members indicated assent.

1404. The Chairperson: The Department set out its policy in respect of the provision of free accommodation for homeless families in which one parent is working. That issue had been raised.

1405. Mr Martin: Most of the homelessness legislation comes from the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and that imposes a duty on the Housing Executive to charge for temporary accommodation; the Housing Executive has no alternative. There is a means test for housing benefit. It is fairly unlikely that families in which one person is working will get housing benefit. In those circumstances, the Housing Executive will try, as quickly as possible, to move the family into temporary accommodation in the private-rented sector, which will be cheaper than hostel accommodation.

1406. Mr Sands: In the past, we have had approaches from hostels on behalf of individuals who find themselves in that circumstance. They ask whether there is scope for us to waive the charges, but, as Mr Martin said, the Housing Executive is required to make a charge. It is probably no different from the situation faced by people who are on the cusp as far as housing benefit is concerned. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

1407. Mr F McCann: I might have said this last week or the week before, but there are many occasions when families, particularly those with a single parent who is working in a low-paid job, are put into temporary accommodation, and the cost for the hostel accommodation is terrible. Those people are forced to carefully consider whether they want to move into that accommodation at all, because of the price that is being charged. I do not know whether there is a guide as to what can be charged or whether the Department or the Housing Executive asks for the first price that they can think of. It hits families hard.

1408. Mr Sands: That is fully realised, and that is why it is the Housing Executive’s intention to move such families into proper accommodation. I use the term “proper accommodation", but I mean accommodation on which the rent would be less than the price for the services of the hostel.

1409. The Chairperson: Are members content that we do not require an amendment in that respect?

Members indicated assent.

1410. The Chairperson: Some issues were raised about the training of Housing Executive staff. When an individual presents as homeless, that has a knock-on effect. For example, it is not only their homelessness that is an issue; there is a social security aspect to that individual’s situation. Can you assure us that the level of training that is in place for staff will enable them to do their jobs as effectively as possible?

1411. Mr Sands: As far as the Housing Executive is concerned, that is an operational matter. It provides the administration for housing benefit, and housing benefit is an add-on for people who have certain other qualifying benefits. They will be in receipt of some of those benefits when they come to the Housing Executive. The Housing Executive staff go through certain training. I am not sure to what level, but they should have sufficient information to ensure that people are informed of what benefits they qualify for and which are available to them, according to their housing need.

1412. Mr Martin: A lot of it is about having proper relationships and signposting. There are good relationships between the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive, both centrally and locally, to ensure that there is proper signposting where required. The Housing Executive assured us that it is continually updating and improving its training and information, so any gaps are being addressed; indeed, I was talking to the head of its homelessness policy unit just this morning.

1413. The Chairperson: Are members content that we have assurance in respect of advice and that it is an operational matter for the Housing Executive?

Members indicated assent.

1414. The Chairperson: In relation to clause 5, there was an issue around appeals against homelessness decisions. Although we did not think for a second that kangaroo courts would be in place, it was not entirely clear what rights of representation there would be. There was particular concern that officers who were involved in the original decision should be excluded from the appeal. Can you give us some information on that?

1415. Mr Martin: There are two processes: there is the review, which is the internal Housing Executive process; and there is the appeal, which is the County Court process. If members refer to proposed new article 11B that will be inserted into the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, paragraph 2 of that would give the Department power to make provision in regulations to stipulate how a review should be conducted and an individual’s right to representation. Those regulations would deal with that issue.

1416. Mr Sands: It provides that the person involved in the original assessment is not involved in the appeal.

1417. The Chairperson: I assume that that would be in line with human rights standards and so forth.

1418. Mr Martin: Yes, absolutely.

1419. The Chairperson: Are members content that there is no need to consider an amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1420. The Chairperson: Will the Department advise on the provision of temporary accommodation to appellants of homelessness decisions? Again, concerns have been raised about that.

1421. Mr Martin: It is proposed that the Housing Executive would have the discretion to offer accommodation during a review, which is their internal process, and during a County Court appeal. Some stakeholders have suggested that that should be a duty. Our view is that that could potentially conflict with the immigration-related aspects. To make that a duty could, if the appellant were a non-eligible person from abroad, put the Housing Executive in a position where it has to decide which piece of legislation it flouts. That would not necessarily be a very wise thing to do.

1422. The Housing Executive has assured us that it will be more transparent in notifying people that it can, at its discretion, offer accommodation during a review. There was an issue in that some people did not know that that facility was available. The Housing Executive assured us that it would make it more transparent, but we feel that it would be impossible to make it a duty, rather than a discretionary power.

1423. The Chairperson: Are you saying that if the Bill were to be amended in such a way that it provides ineligible appellants with accommodation, it would be in breach of immigration law?

1424. Mr Martin: Yes. At present the Housing Executive interprets the law as freely as it can. If someone is ineligible but, setting that ineligibility aside, they are in priority need, the Housing Executive would try to offer them temporary accommodation pending the review and the appeal. However, if the Committee wanted to propose an amendment that would make that provision a duty, that would essentially end that practice and make the situation more difficult. It could prove counter-productive.

1425. The Chairperson: Yes, because the problem is actually being dealt with in a flexible way.

1426. Mr F McCann: I am not aware of any guidance or procedures for dealing with people when they arrive here or what level of discretion rests with the people who deal with them. I understand what Stephen Martin was saying about transparency. It is OK being transparent, but if there is no legislation to deal with the matter, transparency is no good. I presume that most people who arrive here feel isolated and confused; they may not be able to speak the language, and if no one can explain things to them they will not know where to turn, and I do not know where they would end up if a decision is made not to help them.

1427. Mr Martin: There are two issues; the first is access to rights, because of the language barrier. The Housing Executive has good interpretation services; it spent approximately £15,000 on them last year. Those are available, and people are made aware of them. Letters that notify a person that he or she is ineligible for support contain a translation slip in most of the target languages that gives details of where translations can be provided for recipients who do not understand the contents of the letter and how to arrange face-to-face consultations. The Housing Executive does everything that it can to ensure that people from abroad have access to information and, therefore, to their rights. The Housing Executive tries to be as flexible as it can, within the law, to provide people with temporary accommodation where it can, during a review or an appeal process.

1428. Mr F McCann: What happens from the point of arrival? When people appeal a decision to refuse them admission on the grounds that they are ineligible for accommodation, where do they go? What happens to them?

1429. Mr Martin: The Housing Executive’s current practice is that people who launch a review or an appeal who are otherwise ineligible for support but are in priority need are given temporary accommodation pending the result of the appeal, and they are also given advice and assistance in finding alternative accommodation. When such persons are not in priority need, the Housing Executive tries to be flexible and gives them a shorter period in temporary accommodation as well as advice and assistance. Ultimately, there is a real difficulty if those people have no recourse to public funds and they are not working. Unfortunately, because of immigration legislation, that is not something that we can tackle.

1430. The Chairperson: Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

1431. The Chairperson: Are members also content with what the Housing Executive is doing with other languages, translations and other formats? Is there enough clarity on that?

1432. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is the material in plain English?

1433. The Chairperson: Yes.

1434. Ms Ní Chuilín: That sounds wrong, coming from an Irish speaker.

1435. The Chairperson: I resisted making that point, but you have done it for me.

1436. Clause 12 increases Housing Council representation on the Housing Executive board. It might be useful to explore the roles and representation on the Housing Executive board and, more specifically, the proposal from the Housing Council to allow for a possible extension of the number of its representatives. There was also a proposal to have a tenants’ representative on the Housing Executive board. It would be helpful to get a feel for how that representation comes about, and what scope there would be for extending representation, either of elected members or tenants’ representatives.

1437. Mr Sands: Primarily, the membership from the Housing Council was set at three representatives, which was increased to four to allow for the four main parties to be represented. That appears to us to be a good balance, as far as the remaining membership of the Housing Executive board is concerned. We are quite content that having four places on the board provides sufficient council representation from across the political parties.

1438. Any tenant is free to apply for a position on the board. The difficulty with trying to arrive at a particular tenant representative is finding someone who can represent all sides and all areas. That is why tenants are free to apply for a position on the board whenever a position becomes available. Indeed, we are just going through that process at the moment.

1439. The Chairperson: Are there any tenants on the board?

1440. Mr Sands: Not as far as I am aware.

1441. The Chairperson: Have there ever been tenants on the board?

1442. Mr Sands: Yes, but not for quite a few years.

1443. Mr Craig: I am just thinking about the conflict of interest; the tenant representative could end up with a luxury house.

1444. How many members are on the board, and how many of them will be elected representatives? What is the present composition of the board?

1445. Mr Martin: There are 10 members, four of whom are councillors from the Housing Council.

1446. Mr Craig: So, elected representatives comprise a minority of the board’s membership.

1447. Mr Martin: They represent 40% of its membership.

1448. Mr Craig: One aim of the Programme for Government was to do away with unelected quangos. The number of elected representatives on the board should be increased so that they make up the majority of members.

1449. The Chairperson: The Housing Council suggested that the Bill be amended to allow for four or more elected representatives, at the Minister’s discretion. Therefore, rather than saying that elected representatives should make up 50% or 60% of the board’s membership, the Housing Council was saying that there should be scope to allow for an increase in the number of its representatives.

1450. Mr Hilditch: What is the tenure of a board member?

1451. Mr F McCann: Four years.

1452. Mr Hilditch: So, is the board elected every four years?

1453. Mr Sands: Yes, and there is now scope for members who are elected representatives to serve two terms.

1454. Mr F McCann: Over the past couple of years, the rules were changed to allow four elected representatives on the board. However, there are also other sectoral representatives on the board, including one from the disability sector and one from the trade union sector. We should be looking for someone to represent tenants. The voluntary sector has an input in a lot of the documents that come before the Committee. There is quite a lot of expertise in that sector, so we could look at how it is represented on the board. On a daily basis, representatives of the voluntary sector are in contact with Government representatives and tenants.

1455. The Chairperson: Instead of a tenant, you are suggesting a representative from the voluntary sector.

1456. Mr Craig: You are suggesting a tenancy advocate.

1457. Mr Sands: The Department recently conducted a public recruitment process for board members. Interviews have taken place and the decision on appointments is currently with the Minister. She has not made her decision, so the Committee may still have an opportunity to contact her if they have some specific ideas about representation.

1458. The Chairperson: That is not a bad idea. The Committee has seen moves to democratise boards and bodies in the Health and Education Departments so that at least 50% of their members are elected representatives. The increase in the number of elected representatives on the board from three to four does not match that. We are looking at the board’s membership with a democratic focus.

1459. Mr Craig: The majority of members of education and library boards are elected representatives. Our discussions with the Minister of Education on the establishment of the board for the education and skills authority have centred on the majority of its members being elected representatives.

1460. Mr Martin: There are two issues. The guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes it clear that appointments should be made on merit. There is nothing to stop other elected members applying, but the number is currently set at four. We are operating within that guidance. There is also a slight difference between housing bodies and bodies in other Departments. The Housing Council was established in 1971 at the same time as the establishment of the Housing Executive. Up until then, housing had been a local government function, so the two bodies were established to ensure a proper channel of communication.

1461. When the Housing Council meets each month, the director of housing or one of the deputy directors from the Department and the chief executive of the Housing Executive appear before it. Therefore, there is democratic accountability in that respect. The Housing Council is fully representative of all 26 councils. In addition to that, as members will know, the Housing Executive management team appears in front of councils each year to present its district housing plan. Therefore, there are additional mechanisms for ensuring democratic accountability that some of the other bodies that have been mentioned may not have. In our view, there was a balance to be struck.

1462. Mr Craig: That highlights the difficulty that has existed for the past 30 years. Representatives come to a meeting and give a presentation; they may or may not take on board the views expressed. We are not talking about consultation but about having an actual input.

1463. The Chairperson: I am not sure that I take your point, Stephen. There may well be channels of communication between the Housing Executive and the Housing Council. I would be interested to know whether, were our friends from the Housing Council sitting where you are sitting, they would say that that is sufficient. I am mindful, as are some other members of the Committee, of the merit principle, and nobody is saying that that should be taken away. The strategic health authority, the education and skills authority and the library authority — to name just three — will have democratic representation, and the board of the Housing Council will potentially sit out like a sore thumb. That is where our concerns are coming from.

1464. Mr Sands: The Housing Council has just gone through a review about enhancing its role in influencing housing and the Housing Executive. It engaged a consultant to advise on how that should be done. We are looking to see how those enhanced roles can influence, through the four Housing Council members, the role of the board and the direction of housing.

1465. The Chairperson: We will take that up with the Minister directly in the way that was suggested, before coming to a definitive position on it, but our concerns are well registered.

1466. Are members agreed that we should contact the Minister about the issue of Housing Council representation in relation to elected representatives and tenant representatives?

Members indicated assent.

1467. The Chairperson: I have one final question about the Department providing assurance or setting out its plans in respect of a future review of the regulation of registered housing associations and the alignment of the policies and procedures of those organisations with the Housing Executive. Can you give us some assurance on that?

1468. Mr Sands: The Department is considering a total and absolute review of the housing association guide. We recognise that we have probably created a millstone around our necks. It is a 700-page document; it is far too big and unwieldy. It needs to be rationalised so that it deals with specific issues without going into the minutiae, as that can result in the Audit Office coming along at a later stage and saying that only four out of five boxes have been ticked and that is wrong. We want to make the guide more reader friendly, in plain English, to ensure that everyone understands it. It is an opportunity for a total and absolutely radical review of the whole thing. That then gives the Department the opportunity to look at the position as regards the comparison with the Housing Executive and how, as the housing associations become an increasingly dominant force in social housing and their stock numbers increase, it becomes more important that their policies are the same as those of the Housing Executive. We will be undertaking that review.

1469. The Chairperson: At 700 pages, you could build a house with a few copies.

1470. Mr Sands: It would make a good foundation anyway.

1471. Mr F McCann: I think that you should send it to the Chairperson to read over the weekend.

1472. The Chairperson: We will take half each. [Laughter.]

1473. Mr Martin: To follow up on the point about the review of regulation; I was here for and listened to the Committee’s evidence session with the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations. We share the ultimate aim of moving to a lighter-touch regime. However, at present, the statistics do not back that up. During the first round of inspections, 14 associations were deemed to have failed the overall inspection. Therefore, moving to a lighter-touch regime is not the Department’s position at this stage. During the second round of inspections, those housing associations that passed will get a lighter-touch inspection. The existing provision allows —

1474. The Chairperson: Associations can go up or down.

1475. Mr Martin: Absolutely, and it is risk based. We do not think that there is sufficient justification at this stage to undertake a more fundamental review.

1476. The Chairperson: Are members content with that assurance and that we do not need an amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1477. The Chairperson: A number of other issues have been raised; Fra mentioned the common selection scheme, and Carál mentioned the regulation of the private-rented sector. Would those members like to raise those points now or leave them until the clause-by-clause scrutiny?

1478. Mr F McCann: I have raised concerns with the current Minister for Social Development and her two predecessors about the common selection scheme and how it operates in areas of high demand, especially when people find themselves in hostels. It would probably be better to bring that up during the clause-by-clause scrutiny.

1479. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Department conducted a partial equality impact assessment on the Housing (Amendment) Bill, but when the representatives of the Equality Commission gave evidence to the Committee they said that the Bill does not meet the standards. I would like to hear some comments about that.

1480. Mr Martin: We have been discussing that with the Equality Commission. The screening, which was completed in May 2008, showed that there were no differential impacts.

1481. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Equality Commission did not see that screening.

1482. Mr Martin: No, but it does not necessarily see all screenings. At that stage, that was all that was required under the Department’s section 75 duty. In order to assist the scrutiny stage we then — in error, as it now appears — completed a pro forma for an equality impact assessment. That should not have been done, given that the screening found that there was no differential impact. After discussions with the Equality Commission we revisited the screening in light of all the evidence that has become apparent through the Committee sessions and during the last year, just to be sure that we were doubly content that there were no differential impacts. That screening was then sent to the Committee yesterday; I am sorry that it was late. It came to the same conclusion. The partial equality impact assessment was done in error and should not have been done. We recognise that that was a mistake, but it was done in good faith. We just have to hold our hands up and admit that it was done in error.

1483. Ms Ní Chuilín: OK. Finally, I have been concerned about the ring-fencing. When Brian Doherty spoke to the Committee he confirmed that the ring-fencing has been removed in relation to the strategic guidelines on housing. My fear is that, in areas that face the most severe housing stress, as you call it, in north and west Belfast and in the north-west, that will have a big impact on the homelessness figures, because the ring-fencing was a tool to ensure that those who experience higher levels of deprivation than others are catered for. I think that it is a big mistake for the Department to remove that ring-fencing, particularly in the mouth of the Housing (Amendment) Bill going through the Assembly. In fact, I think it is quite crafty for the Department to do that; I would like that placed on the record.

1484. I accept your explanation about the equality impact assessment; that is fair enough.

1485. Mr F McCann: When the decision was taken to remove the ring-fencing, was any impact assessment done to work out whether it would have a detrimental impact on areas of high social need or housing stress?

1486. Mr Sands: I cannot answer that question. When Brian Doherty was providing that information there was an opportunity to ask him. It is his area; I honestly do not know.

1487. Mr F McCann: Can we get that information?

1488. The Chairperson: I think that the Committee did receive it; it can be recirculated. Does anyone have any other issues that they wish to raise? We will be scrutinising the Bill clause by clause next week; it is like déjà vu all over again.

1489. Thank you very much for your time and patience. We will see you at the same time, and in the same place, next week.

1490. The revised cover note contains an item on delegated powers. Annex 2 of the Department’s letter of 14 October sets out the delegated powers memorandum. Do members agree to forward the delegated powers memorandum to the Examiner of Statutory Rules for his consideration?

Members indicated assent.

1491. The Chairperson: Finally, we had intended to commence formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill immediately after the Department’s briefing today. Owing to the delayed responses from the Department, I suggest that we begin formal clause-by-clause scrutiny on October 22.

1492. Mr F McCann: I just want to add that the guidance notes that the Committee staff have prepared are excellent.

1493. The Chairperson: Yes; they are tremendous.

22 October 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

1494. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Hamilton): The next item on the agenda is clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Relevant papers, including the Committee’s scrutiny table containing proposed amendments, are included in members’ packs.

1495. The Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill commenced in June 2009. The Committee has received over 40 written responses on the Bill, around half of which were substantive. The Committee has considered oral evidence from 10 key stakeholder organisations as well as the Department. Given the Committee’s extensive consideration of evidence and responses from the Department, it is proposed that formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill commences today. If members are content, we shall proceed.

1496. Previously, members set out their interim positions on possible amendments to the Bill. During the clause-by-clause scrutiny, members will be asked to set out their final positions in respect of possible amendments to the clauses of the Bill. When the majority of members support an amendment, the Clerk of Bills will take away the proposal and draft appropriate wording for consideration at a subsequent Committee meeting. If members do not feel that they are able to agree to or amend a clause, that must be clearly stated during the clause-by-clause scrutiny. Issues that are raised can be tackled at a subsequent meeting.

1497. If members wish to introduce a new Committee amendment or addition, they must do so clearly during the clause-by-clause scrutiny session. The Department has suggested amendments to the Bill. In those cases, although the Committee may accept the Department’s proposal, that is conditional on the actual wording of the departmental amendment. It is intended that the Committee will finally accept departmental amendments only when they are presented for approval at a subsequent meeting.

1498. It is hoped that the entire Bill can be reviewed during today’s clause-by-clause scrutiny session. If that proves impossible, the Committee will return to clause-by-clause scrutiny on 5 November 2009. All being well, the final version of all amendments will be submitted for Committee approval at its meeting on 12 November 2009. The final version of the Committee’s report on the Bill will be submitted for Committee approval on 19 November 2009, in good time for the reporting date of 1 December 2009.

1499. To speed up the process of clause-by-clause scrutiny and to answer any queries, the Department has been invited to attend the Committee’s scrutiny sessions, and I welcome back Michael Sands, Stephen Martin and Stephen Baird from the Department. The Department has also submitted a further written response, which members have received.

1500. I would appreciate member’s patience during the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. We will endeavour to get through it as quickly as possible, but it will be quite time-consuming. I also ask members to forgive any mistakes that may be made, as there is quite a lot of information to get through.

Clause 1 (Homelessness strategy)

1501. The Chairperson: Clause 1 deals with the Housing Executive’s duty to produce a homelessness strategy every five years and for certain bodies to take account of that strategy in the exercise of their functions. The Committee previously agreed to propose an amendment to clause 1 to emphasise that the requirement for the Housing Executive to produce the homelessness strategy is a duty, not a power. Specifically, the Committee proposed changing the word “may" on page 1, line 8 of the Bill for “shall". The Department has responded to say that that change would be purely presentational. Michael, do you have anything more to say on that?

1502. Mr Michael Sands (Department for Social Development): No, Chairman. The Department took advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel on whether we should change “may" to “shall", and the advice that was given was that that change was not necessary to give effect to the requirements. However, if the Committee feels that it wants to propose an amendment to change that wording the Department will support it.

1503. The Chairperson: Are members agreed to propose an amendment to replace the word “may" on page 1, line 8 of the Bill with “shall"?

Members indicated assent.

1504. The Chairperson: The Committee previously considered whether councils should be added to the list of organisations that are required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions. The Department has indicated that it does not believe that the councils have a significant role to play with respect to homelessness. The Committee Clerk will provide the Committee with a further briefing on the role that councils play in respect of homelessness at out meeting on 12 November.

1505. Michael, can you clarify whether proposed new article 6B(3) will allow the Housing Executive to include specific actions for any statutory body, including councils, in its homelessness strategy?

1506. Mr Sands: As we discussed last week, it depends on what role councils will play with respect to homelessness; for example, it may form part of their community planning activities. We examined the functions that will be transferred to councils and had difficult in identifying anything that would require councils to have a homelessness duty. The jury is still out on that issue.

1507. Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development): If councils were to have functions relating to homelessness, proposed new article 6B(3) would allow those functions to be taken account of in the homelessness strategy. There is no doubt about that.

1508. The Chairperson: It is unclear what community planning will involve for councils. Although nothing specific may be transferred from the Department to councils, many Committee members have council experience and believe that as community planning develops, councils may adopt a wider housing role, rather than a specific homelessness role.

1509. Mr Martin: Rather than this being relevant to community planning, given the way that that is being designed, we feel that it could be relevant to the power of well-being. We are happy to look at the matter again in that context, almost to future-proof the Bill. We do not think that there is an issue for councils now, but there may well be if the power of well-being rolls out in a certain way. We will come back to the Committee with a view on that.

1510. The Chairperson: That is fine. Homelessness is relevant to several areas, including community planning, planning, the power of well-being and building control. As I have said, many of the Committee members have a council background —

1511. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes; we deal with the residue of it all.

1512. Mr Craig: It is important that something is put in legislation that puts an onus on councils to take note of the public housing regime. As a councillor, I know that there being no legal imperative of any description on local authorities with regard to housing — and I mean none whatsoever — has had unfortunate consequences.

1513. The Minister tried very hard to get local authorities, along with all other Government bodies, to free up and identify land for transfer, or even sale. There was no legal imperative on councils to do that, and that needs to be addressed so that there is an onus on councils to at least consider doing that. Councils are major landowners in Northern Ireland, so we would be missing out badly if that were not dealt with.

1514. The Chairperson: That has posed a problem in the past in areas where an attempt has been made to transfer land.

1515. Mr F McCann: Jonathan is correct. Taking the matter a step further; the Committee looks at, discusses and debates the strategies as they affect homelessness. However, in a lot of ways, many councillors work at the coalface of homelessness and deal with its impact on people, so they can bring a different approach and attitude to the issue. Therefore, I cannot understand why they would not be included in the process.

1516. I know that the Housing Council will have an opinion on this. Many councillors would argue that more attention needs to be paid to the opinion of local government on certain matters, with that being fed through councils or through the Housing Council. Homelessness is one such matter.

1517. The Chairperson: The Department has said that it will reconsider the issue and come back to the Committee. Is the Committee content to defer consideration of the matter?

Members indicated assent.

1518. The Chairperson: The Committee agreed that the Prison Service should be added to the list of organisations that are required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions. The Department said that it will introduce an amendment in line with the Committee’s proposal. The Committee agreed to accept the Department’s amendment, subject to a review of the wording of that. Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

1519. The Chairperson: The Committee was minded to support an amendment requiring those organisations listed in proposed new article 6A(5) to include homelessness actions and outcomes in their annual plans and reports. The Department has said that annual plans and reports are not always statutory documents and could not be the subject of legislation.

1520. Mr Sands: The Department’s line remains exactly the same: because those are not statutory documents, it is not possible to legislate for them.

1521. Mr Martin: An alternative is to utilise accountability mechanisms. There is a scrutiny Committee for each Department and, if it were appropriate, this Committee could use the accountability mechanisms that exist to achieve the same end, but without legislation.

1522. Mr Sands: The situation does occur whereby Ministers and Departments look at and approve the business plans of non-departmental public bodies and, as Stephen said, those can be forwarded to the relevant scrutiny Committees. In fact, I am sure that there is an inclusion in them.

1523. The Chairperson: Do any members have any views on that? Is the Housing Executive’s report a statutory document?

1524. Mr Sands: The business plan is not statutory. It is required as part of the Housing Executive’s management statement and financial memorandum, which is the main administrative tool between the Department and the Housing Executive.

1525. The Chairperson: What about its annual report?

1526. Mr Sands: Its annual report is statutory. The Housing Executive is required to publish that.

1527. The Chairperson: Is it possible to make an amendment stating that the actions and so forth in respect of the homelessness strategy should be included in the Housing Executive’s annual report?

1528. Mr Sands: Again, the requirement is to produce an annual report. We can place a requirement in the management statement’s financial memorandum for the Housing Executive to report on homelessness or whatever issue we are addressing. That would be cleaner and would keep all the provisions in one place.

1529. The Chairperson: You could put it into the Bill then?

1530. Mr Sands: Yes. We can take that forward.

1531. Mr Martin: Just to clarify that, it would not be in the Bill but in the management statement. We, as the Housing Executive’s regulator, could place that requirement on the Housing Executive without needing to put it in legislation.

1532. The Chairperson: Are members content with that as a way forward, rather than amending the Bill?

Members indicated assent.

1533. The Chairperson: The Committee did not express a clear view on the funding of emergency accommodation for ineligible homeless people or on the automatic referral of ineligible people who are in danger of destitution. The Department has responded in writing to indicate that such an amendment may leave the Department in breach of immigration law. Do members agree that the Committee accepts the Department’s response and wishes to abandon any amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1534. The Chairperson: Although the Committee indicated that it was not minded to support the amendment to the effect that the homelessness strategy should include a commitment to provide accommodation and support for families who are victims of intimidation where a conviction of a family member is not tenancy related, members indicated that they wish to bring forward amendments related to antisocial behaviour. I suggest that we deal with that when we come to clause 10, which relates to antisocial behaviour. Do members agree?

Members indicated assent.

1535. The Chairperson: If members do not have any further amendments to propose for clause 1, does the Committee agree that, notwithstanding any deferred amendments, clause 1 is agreed?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 1 referred for further consideration

Clause 2 (Duty of Executive to provide advice)

1536. The Chairperson: Clause 2 refers to the Housing Executive’s duty to provide homelessness advice. Clarity is required from members on the proposed amendment that relates to consultation on the homelessness strategy. The Department’s response points out that proposed new article 6B(8), which is found in clause 1 of the Bill, on page 3, lines 10 to 12, requires the Housing Executive to consult on the homelessness strategy. Does the Committee accept the Department’s response and are members, therefore, content to abandon the amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1537. The Chairperson: The next proposed amendment emphasises that it is a duty and not a power of the Department to support advice providers. Specifically, it suggests that the word “may" on page 3, line 38 of the Bill should be replaced with the word “shall". Michael, have you any comment?

1538. Mr Sands: In proposed new article 6D, paragraph (1) makes it clear that it is a duty and it uses the word “shall". In the same article, paragraphs (2) and (3) outline how the Housing Executive can discharge that duty and, because the word “shall" is used in paragraph (1), it is clear that that is a mandatory requirement, and that covers the rest of it.

1539. The Chairperson: So, are you saying that we should not amend that clause?

1540. Mr Sands: There is no need for it. It is already made mandatory in proposed new article 6D(1), so that requirement has to be complied with.

1541. Mr Martin: If I may clarify that; in paragraph D of proposed new article 6, paragraphs (2) and (3) state how the Housing Executive should discharge that duty. A certain level of discretion as to how that duty should be discharged is given, and that is standard practice in legislation because circumstances change and to fetter the Housing Executive’s flexibility too much would be counterproductive. The Housing Executive has a duty to ensure that homelessness advice is available free of charge, and the Bill goes on to say how that duty should be delivered, but it does not unduly fetter discretion. If circumstances change, the Housing Executive could meet that duty in a different or more cost-effective way.

1542. The Chairperson: I understand the point that you are making; the word “may" can sometimes make a requirement more robust. In proposed new article 6D(2) it says: “The Executive may give". It would be helpful if you could outline in what circumstances the Executive may not give advice.

1543. Mr Martin: The clause, as currently drafted, states that the Housing Executive has a duty to provide information free of charge. Proposed new article 6D(2) allows the Housing Executive to pay other bodies, such as the Housing Rights Service or Citizens Advice, to provide that advice on its behalf. Proposed new article 6D(3) allows the Housing Executive to provide other services and support to allow such bodies to provide advice. It could be that the situation changes and it becomes more cost effective to meet that duty in a different way. It would be unfair to fetter discretion too much, but the intention is that the duty would be met through funding for a third party.

1544. The Chairperson: Would an amendment that read “the Executive shall" compel the Housing Executive to delegate that function to other bodies?

1545. Mr Martin: Yes; the Housing Executive could then not perform that function under any circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it is more appropriate for the Housing Executive to deliver that advice directly. The proposed new article allows flexibility for a mixed approach, depending on the circumstances.

1546. The Chairperson: The Housing Executive could do it in certain circumstances, or the organisations that you mentioned could do it in other circumstances; it is about what is most appropriate.

1547. Are members happy with that explanation and content that we do not need to proceed with an amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1548. The Chairperson: We do not like the word “may"; we think that someone is going to get one over on us. Thank you; that was helpful.

1549. I refer members to correspondence that the Committee has received from the Housing Rights Service. It argues that the Bill currently only requires the Department to prescribe homelessness advice to people who present as homeless. The Housing Rights Service suggests that the Bill should extend that requirement to prescribe advice in relation to homelessness to everyone, regardless of whether or not they present as homeless.

1550. Mr Sands: As you can imagine, Chairman, the Housing Executive and the other housing advisory services can give all sorts of advice to lots of people. A requirement to include a provision about prescribing homelessness advice to people who would never have recourse to such a course of action seems over the top. We should certainly be able to address the concerns of people who present as homeless, but to widen that requirement would be too much.

1551. The Chairperson: I understand the argument that you could not allow all and sundry to walk in.

1552. Mr Sands: It would mean that the Housing Executive would have to tick a box to say that it informed people on homelessness provisions even if homelessness advice were not relevant to their circumstances.

1553. The Chairperson: What about people who might need advice to prevent them from becoming homeless?

1554. Mr Martin: There is a similar provision in the legislation in Scotland and England. The reason for having that provision is that there is a large number of local authorities in those jurisdictions for which consistency of homelessness advice is an issue, under clause 2-type duties. That consistency issue does not apply here, but we recognise that it would be useful to consult publicly on the types of advice that would be offered on a non-statutory basis. However, we do not currently see any value in doing that on a statutory basis. In other regions there is an impetus to have consistency, but this is a much smaller place with one regional housing authority. There is value in giving guidance to the Housing Executive on a non-statutory basis, which is then consulted on.

1555. Mr F McCann: Having talked to the Housing Rights Service, it was my impression that the issue is about preventing homelessness and not just dealing with people who walk through the door and present as homeless. The people from the Housing Rights Service said that the cross-departmental, cross-sectoral group agreed that that provision should be included.

1556. Mr Martin: We chaired that group and provided support to it. We have checked back through all our records, which show that what was asked for was a duty to produce regulations under clause 4, not under clause 2. That claim does not tally with our recollection or any of our records on the issue.

1557. Mr F McCann: There seems to be a conflict between what the Department believes was said and what the Housing Rights Service people believe was said.

1558. The Chairperson: We can try to clarify that.

1559. Mr Brady: That probably does need clarification. The Housing Rights Service, with its experience, is perhaps coming from a different perspective. However, it seems to me that it would not have suggested that unless it felt that it was necessary.

1560. You mention England and Scotland. There is such diversity in local authorities there; it depends which political party runs which council and what funding is available. There are all sorts of different agendas. We have one central regional housing authority, and that is an opportunity to be innovative and to provide what, for various reasons, England and Scotland do not. The Housing Rights Service is an organisation with which I have had dealings for 20-odd years, and I do not think that it would suggest something such as this unless it felt that it was on fairly solid ground.

1561. The Chairperson: We will take on board the points that the Department has made and seek face-to-face clarity from the Housing Rights Service at the first opportunity after the Halloween recess. The departmental officials will be at our meeting in the first week after recess.

1562. If members do not have any further amendments to propose for clause 2, does the Committee agree that, notwithstanding any deferred amendments, clause 2 is agreed?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 2 referred for further consideration.

Clause 3 (Eligibility for housing assistance)

1563. The Chairperson: Clause 3 refers to a specific change to eligibility for housing assistance. Clarity is required from members on the proposed amendment that relates to the adoption of plain English standards, alternative formats and non-UK languages. Previously, the Department provided assurance that a minimum standards document relating to the form of homelessness advice would be subject to Committee approval when the Bill is passed. Does the Department have anything to add to that?

1564. Mr Sands: No; it is an operational matter.

1565. The Chairperson: Does the Committee accept the Department’s response and agree to abandon the amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1566. Mr Brady: I have one point in relation to that. At a function in the Long Gallery with the Royal National Institute of Blind People, one issue that came up was the lack of information that is available to partially sighted people and those who are blind; perhaps that is something to factor in.

1567. Mr Sands: Yes; we will look at that, Mr Brady.

1568. Mr Brady: Providing an audio format, such as CD, is something else to think about because Braille can be more expensive.

1569. Mr Sands: Audio assistance can be provided at present. Perhaps it is a matter of making sure that more people are aware that it is available.

1570. Mr Brady: Yes; it is important to make people aware that it is available.

1571. The Chairperson: The Department has provided evidence of the guidance issue in relation to the treatment of spent convictions for those who are seeking homelessness support. If the Department does not have anything to add to that, are members happy with the Department’s response in respect of that issue and content to abandon the amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1572. The Chairperson: If members do not have any further amendments to propose on clause 3, I will put the Question.

1573. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance)

1574. The Chairperson: Clause 4 refers to the Housing Executive’s power to prescribe homelessness advice. The Committee was not previously minded to support any amendments relating to clause 4. Do members have any further amendments to propose for clause 4?

1575. Ms Ní Chuilín: During our discussion on clause 2, Michael suggested that the issue regarding the Housing Rights Service might be more relevant to clause 4.

1576. Mr Sands: Are you referring to the provision of advice?

1577. The Chairperson: Yes; it was said that that matter might be more relevant to clause 4.

1578. Ms Ní Chuilín: If we agree the clause, we should do with the caveat that we may need to come back to it.

1579. The Chairperson: That is fair enough.

1580. Is the Committee happy to agree clause 4, notwithstanding the issue raised by Housing Rights Service?

1581. Mr Martin: The confusion relates to clause 2. When Housing Rights Service presented evidence to the Committee, the issue became confused. The clause 4 duty is the old duty for prescribing, which has been in housing legislation since 1988. The concern of Housing Rights Service relates to the clause 2 duty, which is a new duty, rather than the duty in clause 4.

1582. The Chairperson: We will come back to it and the benefit of your presence will, perhaps, clear that up.

1583. Are members content with clause 4, notwithstanding the matter that was raised?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 4 referred for further consideration.

Clause 5 (Reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness)

1584. The Chairperson: Clause 5 refers to the review of homelessness decisions. The Committee was minded to support an amendment to extend the period during which a review of decisions could be requested from 21 days to 28 days. The Department advised that it was seeking the views of the Housing Executive and the Court Service on the issue.

1585. Mr Sands: We sought their advice on the amendment, and they have no difficulty with it.

1586. The Chairperson: So, you will bring forward an amendment in respect of that?

1587. Mr Sands: Yes.

1588. The Chairperson: If members are content to accept that, I will put the Question.

1589. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

1590. The Chairperson: Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 refer to issues relating to housing associations and introductory tenancies. The Committee was not minded to support amendments relating to clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9. If members do not wish to propose any further amendments, the Committee can agree the clauses.

Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policies and procedures)

1591. The Chairperson: Clause 10 refers to antisocial behaviour. Members were minded to support an amendment to require the Housing Executive to consult on its antisocial behaviour policies. In response to another question, the Department indicated that the Housing Executive, as a statutory body, is generally required to consult on policies. Are members content with that response and content to abandon the amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1592. The Chairperson: Members were also minded to support an amendment that would require housing associations to publish their antisocial behaviour policies. The Department indicated that it is seeking advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel on the matter.

1593. Mr Sands: We have checked with the Office of the Legislative Counsel, and its concern is that we would be placing a statutory duty on housing associations, and that would mean that they would be treated as if they were statutory bodies, which they are not. It would bring them within the scope of a judicial review.

1594. Thinking about the dynamics of issuing particular policy papers; the Housing Executive is a regional housing authority, so it has to issue one policy. However, since there are 33 housing associations, there would have to be 33 different policies, unless, as was suggested last week, the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) could establish one composite policy, which it could issue on behalf of all housing associations. To put the requirement onto every housing association, some of which are small community housing associations, would be exceptionally onerous.

1595. Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not understand the legal difficulties, but I do know that when neighbourhoods experience antisocial behaviour, regardless of who the social landlord is, it is the same for them; it is all relative. If one composite policy were brought in for all social landlords, regardless of their size and function, it would be a measure of goodwill. Of the tenancy documents that all social landlords provide, those dealing with good behaviour and antisocial behaviour are the only ones that are standardised. The rest are far from standardised, which has caused inequalities for some social housing tenants, but in that respect they are by and large the same; we actually had a look at them. Sometimes I think that the legal stuff is used to try to deter us, although I am not saying that it is not a reality.

1596. Mr Martin: We have said before that the Department can achieve the same ends through its powers of regulation over housing associations. That would allow a bit more flexibility. As Michael said, we could get NIFHA to draft a policy on behalf of all associations, or each association could draft its own policy. If we take the statutory duty route, not only do we have concerns about the judicial review — which I will speak about in a moment — but it will result in less flexibility. Each housing association would have to publish its own policy. The Department can achieve the same thing without an amendment, and that is our preferred route.

1597. The point about judicial review is important, because the more a housing association is treated as a statutory body, the more it can be subject to the regime to which a statutory body is subject, such as a judicial review, which is a very costly process. There is quite a serious financial implication for housing associations if we go down the statutory route.

1598. Mr Stephen Baird (Department for Social Development): We want to standardise the procedures. If we tackle that through imposing duties on individual associations to publish their procedures, those procedures may not be adequate or consistent with what other associations are doing. That may not be the best way to do it. Stephen Martin spoke about the need for a consistent approach, which could be achieved through NIFHA, which is the co-ordinating body. I think that that is more important.

1599. Mr Brady: The mechanisms are already there, so it seems the most logical route to take.

1600. The Chairperson: You can appreciate that, at a constituency level, we see increasing numbers of tenants in housing association properties, as is inevitably the case. We do not draw a distinction, and certainly the people living in those properties do not draw a distinction. However, I understand the legal position that you mentioned. Sometimes I think that housing associations are treated as statutory bodies when it suits and not treated that way when it does not suit. However, members seem to be content with the assurance that we can achieve the same aim through existing powers without putting very onerous duties on small housing associations.

1601. Mr Sands: We will place the requirement on NIFHA to produce a composite policy.

1602. The Chairperson: Are members happy to abandon the possible amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1603. The Chairperson: Before we move away from clause 10, I invite members to set out any further proposed amendments in relation to that clause or to antisocial behaviour issues. Fra, I know that you wanted to give us your ideas.

1604. Mr F McCann: I have explained at a number of meetings, and you mentioned earlier, that all of us, including the Department, the Housing Executive, and housing associations, come under tremendous pressure in relation to antisocial activity. It seems that that will be with us forever and a day. We may get on top of the issue at different stages, but it always raises its head again. One of the issues that we constantly come up against is the duty of care. Housing associations and the Housing Executive say that they have a duty of care to applicants, but no duty of care to tenants when someone is moving into a neighbourhood. That has been a sore point.

1605. Another matter is the position of residents associations, which, if they are formed and funded properly, can, among other things, be an effective tool to combat antisocial activity. Therefore, I would like to suggest a couple of amendments.

1606. First, the Housing Executive and housing associations should be required to provide resources and training for residents associations to help them to combat antisocial behaviour.

1607. Mr Sands: Primary legislation is not the place to include that sort of requirement. Mr McCann’s suggestion would be much easier to deal with by amending the housing association guide and the Housing Executive’s management statement. The Office of the Legislative Counsel would not be happy about putting such detail into primary legislation, which is designed to enable things to happen. Therefore, getting into that sort of detail would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, Mr McCann, we will certainly look at amending the guide to include requirements on housing associations and the Housing Executive to share that information.

1608. Mr F McCann: I appreciate what you said about amending the guide; however, over the years, it has been difficult to get housing associations and the Housing Executive to work with residents associations and to provide them with whatever meagre resources there might have been. That amendment would oblige housing associations and the Housing Executive to actively consider funding residents associations.

1609. Mr Sands: We can look at and address that point, but I cannot comment on it now. There are even more difficult funding situations.

1610. Mr F McCann: I appreciate that but, given the nature of the work that residents associations do, they are excluded from almost all funding opportunities.

1611. The Chairperson: Before we move on, Fra, are you happy with that response?

1612. Mr F McCann: I take that it we will be coming back to this point during this period. I would like to go ahead with it, but Mr Sands said that he wants to come back to it.

1613. Mr Sands: We can come back to the Committee about amending the guide to introduce that suggestion.

1614. Mr Martin: I wish to clarify two points about that. First, the Housing Executive works with a number of organisations in the voluntary and community sector and although that work may not be deemed sufficient, it is ongoing. Antisocial behaviour is not just a housing issue; it is a big community safety issue, and each council has a community safety partnership, which also funds residents associations. It is important that the Committee bears that in mind when considering any amendment in respect of this issue.

1615. Mr F McCann: I understand what Stephen said, but I sit on some of the bodies and groups that he was talking about, so I know how they work and the impact that they have on areas. Nevertheless, in many areas, residents associations are fairly weak because they have not had any direct input, funding or training from the Housing Executive. I am talking about putting that funding requirement on a statutory basis. If possible, I would like to move ahead with that amendment.

1616. The Chairperson: The Department is saying that it is not minded to amend on that point. Is the Committee happy with the Department’s assurance that it will look into amending the relevant guidance, and can we defer this matter and come back to it later? Fra indicated that he would like to proceed, but it might be fairer to give members time to consider the matter and come back to it.

1617. Mr F McCann: Come back to it when, Chairperson; next week or the week after?

1618. The Chairperson: We have until the week after next, so we could look at it on 5 November.

1619. Mr F McCann: My second proposed amendment is that, prior to transferring tenants from one area to another as a result of antisocial behaviour, the Housing Executive and housing associations should be required to carry out an area impact assessment.

1620. Mr Sands: Again, that brings us to questions about how much detail should be included in primary legislation. Nevertheless, if I might clarify the position: the Housing Executive does not simply transfer housing association tenants who have been found guilty of antisocial behaviour in an effort to transfer that problem elsewhere.

1621. Mr F McCann: Most people around this table would tell you a different story. It happens quite regularly, and, at the end of the day, tenants have no recourse to argue against it. On some occasions, depending on the individual Housing Executive managers and workers involved, they may sit down and talk to tenants but, as a general rule, the Housing Executive does move such people.

1622. Mr Sands: The Housing Executive cannot force a tenant to move; a tenant has to request a transfer before the Housing Executive will consider moving him. The Housing Executive cannot tell a tenant that it is moving him to a different area. I take your word that you may have evidence of that happening. However, under the rules, the Housing Executive cannot do that.

1623. Mr F McCann: I think that you are picking me up wrong. There are families that have destroyed the areas that they live in. When those families put in for a transfer, they end up being given priority and being moved to other areas. The Housing Executive or housing associations move those families into another area because they are at the top of the list, without any discussion with the host community. That is what I am talking about. The Housing Executive and the housing associations need to carry out an assessment on the impact that such a family will have in an area.

1624. Mr Sands: I am not aware of that happening, Mr McCann. As far as the regulations are concerned, that is our line on them. We will have to talk to the Housing Executive about that and find out what exactly it is doing. That should not be happening.

1625. Mr Brady: It happened in my area.

1626. Mr Sands: We will have to check with the Housing Executive and see what its position is and try to ensure that it is complying with the regulations as set out and the provisions of the inspection scheme. We will come back to you on that issue.

1627. Mr Craig: If I am picking it up right, what we are talking about is that a person’s tenancy history is not being taken into account when that person is moved to another area. There is a huge issue around that. Some individuals have created mayhem and caused huge problems for housing associations and the Housing Executive. However, that history is totally ignored when such individuals are rehoused. There should be a mechanism that takes that history into account when people are being rehoused.

1628. Mr Sands: Perhaps what you are looking for is an assurance from the Housing Executive that it will take that into account.

1629. Ms Ní Chuilín: As you can see, Michael, we are not very assured.

1630. Mr Sands: I cannot answer the question, but I will find out about it.

1631. Mr F McCann: There is some overlap in my suggested amendments, another of which refers to the duty of care. I have suggested that the Housing Executive and housing associations should be required to have a duty of care to existing residents. However, if the previous amendment is taken forward, that might take care of that.

1632. My other suggestion is that the Housing Executive and housing associations be required to share information on applicants who are moving due to antisocial behaviour. That goes to the heart of the issue that Jonathan just raised. The lack of information being shared among the Housing Executive and the housing associations is a serious problem. The Housing Executive will tell you that, on a number of occasions, even it does not know whether somebody has been moved from a housing association house.

1633. Mr Martin: We are aware of that issue, and it is part of the package of proposals that we are developing for the second housing Bill. We could not consider that in the Housing (Amendment) Bill because, as it opens a data gateway under the Data Protection Act 1998, the issue will need consultation and approval from the Secretary of State. It is something that we are aware of and are trying to address. However, as far as we are concerned, it is not possible to address that in the time frame that is available for this Bill.

1634. Mr F McCann: When will the next Bill be coming to the Committee?

1635. Mr Martin: The current timetable is that the next Bill will be introduced before the summer recess next year. Therefore, it would be with the Committee around June.

1636. The Chairperson: Same time, same place, next year.

1637. We heard before that a lot of the second Bill is going to focus on antisocial behaviour, and you say that it might be better to consider Fra’s suggested amendment in relation to the second Bill. What about the other issues that he raised? I understand the point that you are making about not having too much nitty-gritty in primary legislation and how that is better left to secondary legislation or guidance. Is it possible that any of his other suggested amendments could be dealt with in the second housing Bill?

1638. Mr Martin: Although it may be doing it, the Housing Executive cannot simply decide to transfer people from one area to another. However, we are aware that there is a policy loophole around swaps. If two households agree to swap houses, antisocial behaviour cannot be taken into account. That is a loophole that we are looking to close in the second housing Bill.

1639. Mr F McCann: The only thing that the Housing Executive and housing associations consider is whether both properties meet the needs of the people involved in the swap. Antisocial behaviour is a separate issue. I was surprised that you said that the Housing Executive should be looking at the behaviour of tenants before they move to another area; that does not happen. As you have heard this morning, unless there is something in legislation that dictates a procedure by which the Housing Executive and housing associations must abide, the problem will persist.

1640. I recently spoke to representatives from the Housing Executive, who complained about housing associations not passing on information about the past behaviour of tenants. One family can destroy a street, and two families can destroy an area.

1641. The Chairperson: If the Committee were to submit such amendments, they would perhaps fall foul of consultation requirements, for example. Therefore, a second Bill may be the best method of addressing those issues. I think that everyone will agree that there are major issues linked to antisocial behaviour; if it were not recognised as a problem, clause 10 would not exist and there would not be the possibility of a second Bill to address issues connected to it.

1642. The Committee can make it clear that it expects to see such issues addressed in the second Bill. We can say that in our report and on the Floor of the House during the Housing (Amendment) Bill’s Consideration Stage. Instead of bringing forward those issues as part of this Bill, we can say that we expect the Department to bring them forward in the next Bill.

1643. Mr F McCann: You are right. The officials have said that they will look at those issues, and I accept that.

1644. During our scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill, we have raised a number of issues, not least the funding and training of residents associations and the other elements connected to antisocial activity. Can we have some feedback on those issues in the mean time?

1645. Mr Sands: We will check with the Housing Executive on those points. The Department welcomes any suggestions or guidance from the Committee on provisions that its members feel should be included in the second housing Bill. It is early in the process, so provision can still be included.

1646. Mr Brady: The private landlords association raised the issue of people who were guilty of antisocial behaviour moving out of Housing Executive or housing association accommodation into private-rented accommodation. In such instances, private landlords are given no history. Therefore, someone could move out of a Housing Executive or housing association house and into a private-rented house two doors down. The problem covers a range of sectors.

1647. Mr Sands: Someone who is evicted is homeless but cannot be considered under homelessness legislation, because of the reasons for that eviction. Unfortunately, they have to go somewhere.

1648. Mr Brady: With respect, it is a self-inflicted wound. Such people are remaining in the same communities but are being housed by a different sector. Private landlords are saying that they have no idea that those people are serial antisocial offenders.

1649. Mr F McCann: Some of the legislation in England and in other jurisdictions goes much further, especially in respect of the powers for local councils. There are behavioural charters by which families and individuals have to abide, and there are parenting and behaviour classes. That is the road that we need to go down. We need to take the best of what is happening in other jurisdictions. We all know that one of the biggest issues on people’s doorsteps is antisocial activity. On the point that Mickey made, known drug dealers have left areas and gone straight to the top of the waiting list because they were deemed to have been intimidated out of an area. Such people have also walked into the private-rented sector. Something must be done so that local residents and communities have recourse to prevent those people ending up in their areas.

1650. The Chairperson: The Department can see that, because of its nature, that subject arouses much emotion in members. We deal with the matter regularly. Are members content to abandon Fra’s amendments at this stage?

1651. Mr F McCann: I feel suitably abandoned.

1652. The Chairperson: We will do so with the proviso that we will contact the Department about the points that Fra raised. Clarity is needed on some of the specific points, and we will make it clear in our report at Consideration Stage that we want those issues to be addressed in the second Bill.

1653. Ms Ní Chuilín: I have no doubt that Fra will mention that.

1654. The Chairperson: I have absolutely no doubt that he will do so at every opportunity.

1655. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive)

1656. The Chairperson: This clause refers to representation of the Housing Council on the Housing Executive board. Members considered the issue of enhanced democratisation of the Housing Executive and were minded to explore an amendment that would increase Housing Council representation, with the addition of a tenancy advocate. I wrote to the Minister on those issues, and the Department gave a response in its letter, of which members have a copy. Are Members happy to defer any further consideration on that clause until we get a more substantive response to our letter?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 12 referred for further consideration.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Definition of “house in multiple occupation")

1657. The Chairperson: Members were minded to support the amendment to the definition of a “housing in multiple occupation", which would be limited to an extension of the definition of “family" to include uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews. The Department advised that it would introduce an amendment to that effect.

1658. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 19 agreed to.

1659. The Chairperson: Part of the Committee’s scrutiny table contained other amendments that were not specific to particular clauses. Section AJ deals with the issue of registered rents. The Committee was minded to support an amendment to add Assembly procedure to the review of registered rents. The Department advised that it is to seek legal advice on how best Assembly procedure in that regard could be added.

1660. Mr Sands: We are taking legal advice on that, and we would certainly be prepared to seek an amendment if legal advice were to confirm that there is a requirement for the review to be subject to Assembly procedure. We think that it will, and we have no difficulty with that.

1661. The Chairperson: Are members happy with that?

1662. Ms Ní Chuilín: You said that the Department would be happy to seek an amendment; one of the issues was about high rent in some areas, even for association housing. Is this about capping it?

1663. Mr Sands: No; it is about the form of Assembly control over the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. It will require the Committee or the Assembly to give negative resolution.

1664. The Chairperson: It gives us a say over whether to accept or amend the review.

1665. Mr Sands: It is about procedures in the Assembly and in the Committee.

1666. Ms Ní Chuilín: So, it will involve another statutory rule appearing before the Committee?

1667. The Chairperson: Yes. Are members happy, subject to a review of the final wording, to agree to the amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1668. The Chairperson: Section AK deals with the common housing selection scheme. I am aware that Fra wants to propose amendments at this stage.

1669. Mr F McCann: I am open to advice on the first two of my proposed amendments. I have met three different Ministers to discuss the serious discrepancies in the common selection scheme, which discriminates against some people, particularly those in hostels or those who live in areas of high demand. One suggestion is that the selection scheme be amended to award 20 points to applicants for every six months that they stay in hostel accommodation. I am suggesting that because, for the past five years, I have been promised that a review will be set up to consider such matters. To date, nothing has been done.

1670. My other amendment relates to people with mental or physical illnesses. I know that a needs assessment takes place. However, on many occasions, the system does not allocate additional points, which would allow those people to flow through the system. Somebody told me that legislation may not be required to deal with that matter because the system can be tweaked or changed.

1671. Mr Sands: That is true. I will pass over to my colleague in a minute. The Bill contains no real housing management processes; therefore, we could not include such a provision. However, as Fra rightly suggests, it is an operational matter, and the scheme could be tweaked. Such details are not covered by primary legislation.

1672. Mr Martin: The Minister asked my team to consider how to modernise the common selection scheme. I understand that one point deals with temporary accommodation, and we are considering the exact issue that Mr McCann has raised.

1673. The issue of mental and physical illness is more problematic. The priority need provision in the legislation means that if somebody has a particular condition, it is taken into account. Therefore, it would be difficult to award additional points, and medical judgements introduce many complexities.

1674. Mr F McCann: By and large, medical certificates confirming an illness go into files and do not add much to a person’s case, even though their doctor may have recommended a certain course of action. Under the old priorities system, one priority specifically recognised the level of people’s sickness. I know that, under certain circumstances, people will go for a needs assessment. However, the results do not always favour the applicant and may run counter to their doctor’s suggestion. That happens to a number of people, and I ask you to take it on board. I understand that it may involve difficulties, but people face that problem on a regular basis.

1675. Mr Martin: I am happy to take specific examples into account as part of the process and respond at a later date.

1676. Ms Ní Chuilín: One example is the placement of people with suicidal tendencies in the seven towers of high-rise flats in the New Lodge. One would imagine that a common-sense approach would be employed, but often it is not.

1677. Mr Martin: A common-sense approach should be taken, because accommodation must be reasonable.

1678. Ms Ní Chuilín: Some people even had a letter even from their GP or consultant that stated that they should be placed in suitable accommodation.

1679. Mr Sands: I agree entirely.

1680. Mr F McCann: Weight must be given to what a doctor or consultant says about the impact of where people are housed. People in areas of high demand get trapped, and the points system does not allow them to progress. There was supposed to be a conveyor belt system whereby people would graduate according to their level of points. Earlier this year, someone could have got a two-bedroom flat for 120 or 130 points. Today, people cannot get a two-bedroom flat in certain areas for 180,190 or even 200 points. It is almost impossible for people to reach such points levels, so they get stuck where they are.

1681. My last amendment is that the Housing Executive should undertake a review of the common selection scheme every three years to ensure equality of opportunity for all applicants. That goes to the heart of the matter, and it seems like a fairly simple requirement that could be included in the Bill.

1682. Mr Sands: Yes; that does seem like a simple requirement that could be put in. However, in areas such as west Belfast, some people may be on the waiting list for more than three years because they want to be housed almost on a specific street. The difficulty of undertaking a review is that it may change those people’s position and shunt their application back even further. Three years is a narrow window in which to expect a review of such important criteria.

1683. The Chairperson: How often is the system reviewed?

1684. Mr Sands: There is no set date or time for reviews. A review is carried out when it becomes apparent to the Department that one is needed. We have instigated a review now because of, for example, comments that have been made to the Committee as well as other things that come into play as we move forward with different provisions.

1685. Mr Brady: When was the last review?

1686. Mr Baird: The system is updated and reviewed on an ongoing basis, as and when required; amendments are made from time to time.

1687. Mr Brady: With respect, that seems like an ad hoc approach.

1688. Ms Ní Chuilín: Was the last review carried out in 2005?

1689. Mr Sands: It may have been; I am honestly not sure.

1690. Mr Brady: Surely the fact that people have been on the waiting list for more than three years indicates the need for reviews to happen at regularly intervals.

1691. Mr Sands: That would not necessarily help people who only want to move within a narrow area.

1692. Mr Brady: I take your point; some people only want to live beside their mummies.

1693. Mr Sands: That is part of the problem.

1694. Mr Brady: Other people just want a house.

1695. Mr F McCann: I agree with Mickey that that seems like an ad hoc approach. I have raised the point for five or six years that people are getting trapped in a system that is unable to deal with the problem. By and large, it is people in areas of high demand who cannot graduate through that system. One of the specific problems is people being trapped in hostels for perhaps three or four years. Those people may have had children just before moving into a hostel and those children are now going to primary school.

1696. A system of single lets has recently being introduced, and that may help some of the people who have been waiting longest. However, a lot of people end up living their lives in hostel accommodation that was not built for that purpose. I am not saying that more regular reviews would deal with individual cases, but they would address the problem of people being trapped in hostel accommodation or at a particular point in the system for a long period.

1697. The Chairperson: Perhaps, before the Committee takes a definitive view on whether it supports such an amendment, you could come back to us on 5 November with an outline of what specifically triggers a review of the common selection scheme; what you look at in particular, and what you specifically consider in respect of equality of opportunity, which is something that Fra referred to. That would be helpful in allowing us to determine whether an amendment is necessary.

1698. Mr Martin: I may be incorrect; however, my understanding of Assembly procedure is that an amendment can only be proposed on a particular issue if it can be closely linked to a part of the Bill. My understanding is that there is nothing in the Bill that would allow that such an amendment to be added. The common selection scheme is provided for in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which deals with housing management. I understand that there is nothing in the Bill on which to hook that amendment. I could be incorrect; perhaps other could guide me on that.

1699. The Chairperson: I am not sure that that is correct. Given that it is an amendment Bill, I believe that its scope is fairly wide. That is why we are considering all those matters.

1700. The Clerk of Bills: I agree; that is not always the case. It depends on the scope of the Bill. The Housing (Amendment) Bill is particularly wide-ranging. Therefore, it may be possible to make amendments that go beyond what is stated on the cover of the Bill. We can look at that. It is a wide-ranging Bill and when you have that situation, it is possible to maintain that width by adding to clauses.

1701. Mr Sands: We will take that on board.

1702. The Chairperson: I am worried that Fra will now see other opportunities. [Laughter.]

1703. Mr F McCann: Roll on next week.

1704. The Chairperson: We are just trying to get over the finishing line. [Laughter.]

1705. We can come back to that issue. Fra, I take it that you are happy with the responses to the previous two points. We will wait for the Department’s response in respect of a review.

1706. Section AL of the Committee’s scrutiny table deals with the regulation of private landlords. Do members want to set out any proposed amendments on that?

1707. Ms Ní Chuilín: I do not wish to do so at present. However, rather than simply having regulation of private landlords, I would go further and say that it should be mandatory.

1708. The Chairperson: We await further information on that. I am, therefore, happy that we do not propose any amendments in relation to that.

1709. Do the departmental officials want to make any final comments?

1710. Mr Sands: None; except to thank the Committee for its consideration of the Bill. [Laughter.] I mean that.

1711. Ms Ní Chuilín: Do you miss us already? [Laughter.]

1712. The Chairperson: Have we convinced you of the merits of any of the amendments that we have suggested? Are there any, apart from those that you have already indicated, that you would like to adopt?

1713. Mr Sands: Absolutely, Chairman. One always depends upon the Committee’s credibility in s

1714. Ms Ní Chuilín: I think that our Committee is incredible, rather than just credible.

1715. The Chairperson: I seek agreement that, apart from any deferred matters that were identified today and pending outstanding evidence and clarity and consideration of the final wording of amendments, the clause-by-clause scrutiny is concluded. Effectively, therefore, nothing new can be introduced; we can consider only those deferred matters.

1716. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is the regulation of landlords among those deferred items?

1717. The Chairperson: Yes, we will consider that to be a deferred item. We decided that we would not propose an amendment on it at this stage.

1718. Are members content that that is the end of our clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill?

Members indicated assent.

1719. The Chairperson: Thank you very much, everyone. I am impressed by how quickly we were able to get through that. Deferred matters and outstanding evidence will be considered by the Committee at its next meeting on 5 November. I thank the departmental officials for their help.

5 November 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Carál Ní Chuilín

Witnesses:

1720. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): I wish to advise members that, following the additional written evidence that was received from the Housing Rights Service on clauses 2 and 4 of the Housing (Amendment) Bill, we have asked Ms Janet Hunter and Ms Nicola McCrudden to come back. They are suckers for punishment; they cannot keep away from this place, but I welcome them here today. I ask them to outline their evidence, after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions.

1721. Ms Janet Hunter (Housing Rights Service): I thank the Committee for the opportunity to come back and provide some further clarification on the issues that were raised in relation to clauses 2 and 4, following our earlier submissions. Those clauses amend the existing homelessness legislation; we have provided members with a paper that, we hope, will explain more fully the point that we are trying to convey.

1722. Clause 2 places a new duty on the Housing Executive to ensure that advice on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available to any person who needs it. From their constituency work, members will know that “advice" is a generic term and can be used to describe a broad range of activities, from giving out leaflets to negotiating with landlords or representing people in court. In light of that, Housing Rights Service believes that the Government must provide guidance on the level and nature of the advice that should be available and that any such advice should be appropriate and comprehensive. As things stand, the Bill does not include that provision.

1723. In summary, Housing Rights Service believes that clause 2 should be amended to ensure that it is implemented as the promoting social inclusion (PSI) working group intended, so that the new duty of advice will help to prevent people in Northern Ireland from becoming homeless. In the paper that we have provided to the Committee, the Housing Rights Service suggests a way in which that objective could be achieved. We suggest that an additional paragraph is inserted at the end of clause 2 saying:

“The DSD may issue guidance, to the Housing Executive, as to the form and content of such advice and information."

1724. That wording is similar to that in comparable legislation in England, Wales and Scotland and would bring Northern Ireland into line with the position in those jurisdictions. Housing Rights Service has spoken to officials from the Department for Social Development (DSD) in the past week or so, and we understand that they may be amenable to considering such an amendment.

1725. I am happy to answer questions.

1726. Ms Lo: We received a response from the Department saying that the issue of general advice on homelessness was not mentioned in the PSI working group. However, officials now seem to be happy that that merits inclusion.

1727. Ms Hunter: Our view is that that was intended by the promoting social inclusion group, but words are subject to interpretation.

1728. The Chairperson: Homelessness prevention advice has previously been mentioned; is it your desire to see that specifically referred to in the Bill, or are you happy with the more generic wording?

1729. Ms Hunter: We are happy with how clause 2 is currently drafted, because it talks about ensuring that advice around homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available. It mentions both those terms. However, we feel that clause 2 needs an additional provision to further define the nature and level of that advice.

1730. The Chairperson: I apologise; I misspoke. I meant to ask whether homelessness prevention advice should be referred to in the amendment. If you are happy enough with the wording being generic —

1731. Ms Hunter: We are happy with it being generic. It will then be up to the Department to produce the guidance and the appropriate level of detail.

1732. Mr F McCann: I beg your indulgence, as I may be going off on a different track. At some stage this morning, we will be dealing with a shared remit, and I know that the people from the Housing Rights Service had been advising us on the housing allowance. Difficulties have been pointed out by a number of organisations, so we should try to tap into their expertise on how the shared remit will operate.

1733. The Chairperson: You are begging my indulgence. I realise that there may be issues with that statutory rule, and if you would like to raise that point again at that stage, we might seek advice then. I realise that that may seem like the wrong way around, but it would be more appropriate to seek advice on those concerns at that stage.

1734. Thank you, Nicola and Janet, for your presentation and for answering questions. We will raise that issue with the departmental officials at the appropriate stage of our clause-by-clause scrutiny.

1735. We move to the Committee’s clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I remind members that the Committee commenced its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny at its meeting on 22 October 2009. At that meeting, the Committee considered and agreed to 13 of the 19 clauses in the Bill.

1736. Members have previously set out their interim positions on the remaining six clauses and the Committee deferred consideration on additional amendments. During today’s clause-by-clause scrutiny, members will be asked to set out their final position regarding possible amendments to the remaining clauses of the Bill, subject to review of their final wording. The Department will provide the wording of all amendments that it is to take forward for the Committee meeting on 12 November 2009. Where the majority of Committee members support a further amendment, the Committee Clerk and the Clerk of Bills will take the proposal and draft the appropriate wording for consideration at a subsequent meeting. All being well, the final version of the Bill report will be submitted to the Committee for approval on 19 November, in good time for the reporting date of 1 December.

1737. Members’ packs contain quite a lot of information, including an updated summary of evidence and amendment table; a departmental response on conflicts of interest for housing associations; a departmental response to various queries dated 2 November; and a departmental response dated 27 October on other queries from the Committee. There is also an Assembly Research and Library Services paper on the remit of local government in tackling homelessness, and additional information from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), responding to Committee queries and providing information on interdepartmental protocols pertaining to the housing of ex-offenders.

1738. The Department has been invited to this clause-by-clause scrutiny session; I am sure that the officials love to see those invitations coming through. I welcome the two Stephens; Stephen Martin and Stephen Baird from the Housing (Amendment) Bill team. You are both very welcome.

1739. I will go through each of the outstanding matters as they occur and ask members to comment on those. I ask members to be gentle with me because it will, at times, be quite tricky jumping between clauses.

Clause 1 (Homelessness strategy)

1740. The Chairperson: Clause 1 concerns the Housing Executive’s duty to produce a homelessness strategy and for certain bodies to take account of the strategy in the exercise of their functions. The Committee had agreed that the word “may" on page 1, line 8 of the Bill should be replaced with the word “shall", to demonstrate that the requirement to produce a strategy is a duty and not a power. The Department now advises that that amendment is more problematic than was first believed and would undermine the intention of the clause. I invite Stephen Martin to explain the problems for us.

1741. Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development): It is a fairly technical point but I will try my best to explain it. We have been speaking to our legislative draftsman, and he told us that changing “may" to “shall" would disrupt the clause. It would not be possible to make just that one amendment. We have to either completely rewrite the clause or leave it as it is. The draftsman is clear that, as the clause stands, it places a duty on the Housing Executive. However, changing “may" to “shall" would have a negative impact and the whole clause would need to be completely restructured. His legal advice is that clause 1 should remain as it is.

1742. If the Committee takes the view that clause 1 is to be changed, we would need to get the Minister’s view on whether she would be prepared to make that change. However, if the change were to be made, the whole of proposed new article 6A would have to be changed.

1743. The Chairperson: In what respect would it have to be changed?

1744. Mr Martin: I will try my best to answer that. Essentially, proposed new article 6A(1) is drafted to provide a power for the Housing Executive to draft a homelessness strategy. However, in paragraphs (3) and (4) a duty is imposed on the use of that power. Therefore, that power has to be used in certain ways. For example, paragraph (3) states that the power has to be used in such a way that a homelessness strategy is drawn up within 12 months, and paragraph (4) ensures that a strategy is produced at least once every five years.

1745. Therefore, although the power is provided for in paragraph (1), that power is confined and duties are imposed on its use. Essentially, that makes it a duty rather than a power. Changing “may" to “shall" in paragraph (1) has no effect without making subsequent changes. It is quite a complex legal argument, and one that I am trying my best to put across.

1746. The Chairperson: So, in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of proposed new article 6A, it is always “shall". Therefore, even though it is a power in paragraph (1), it is duties that are outlined in the other paragraphs. Therefore, that gives greater force to the word “may" than would ordinarily be the case.

1747. Mr Martin: Yes, that is right.

1748. The Clerk of Bills: I see this as a drafting condition. The Department has been given an assurance that its objective is being achieved through the legislation as drafted. It is a complex and technical argument; however, I think that you have been given an assurance that you are getting what you asked for. The Committee can be comfortable with that.

1749. The Chairperson: Are you comfortable with that, Fra?

1750. Mr F McCann: As Stephen said, there are technical difficulties in the drafting of the clause, and I am not au fait with the drafting of Bills. However, I thought that in developing a Housing (Amendment) Bill, putting the word “shall" into clause 1 would override the other clauses that it may come up against.

1751. I know that we are being guaranteed that what is outlined in the Bill will be done; however, the problem is that if something comes up three or four years down the line, the Housing Executive can put off doing those things for another year or two. The word “shall" gives a wee bit of a guarantee.

1752. The Clerk of Bills: Another possible compromise is that the Committee may choose to speak to the clause stand part, so it may raise this issue at Consideration Stage, when the Minister will have to give a full explanation. The Committee could thereby air the issue, and if it is dissatisfied with the explanation given, it will have a second chance to have that addressed at Further Consideration Stage. This is very much a technical issue. The Committee has been given an assurance by the legal team.

1753. Mr F McCann: It is so technical that many of the voluntary groups concerned believe that it is important that “may" be replaced with “shall", to ensure that it is a duty.

1754. It is OK for me to stand up and address the House on this issue; however, rather than speaking as an individual Member, I would prefer that we speak as a Committee. There is a big difference between the two.

1755. The Clerk of Bills: You could do either. The Chairperson and individual Committee members can remark that this matter was an issue for the Committee and could then seek clarification and assurances from the Minister. Anyone can speak at Consideration Stage.

1756. Mr Easton: I am not an expert on this, but it strikes me as strange that inserting this one wee word, “shall", will make such a big difference. If we keep “may", the Minister will have wriggle room. I neither understand nor accept the argument that replacing “may" with “shall" will mean that the whole clause will have to be changed; I find that incredible and bizarre.

1757. Mr Armstrong: Leaving the wording as it is will give someone the opportunity for wriggle room.

1758. Ms Lo: I learnt English as a second language, and I know that it has strict grammar rules, because those were beaten into us. To me, “may" and “shall" are very different: “may" means that one may or may not do something, whereas “shall" means that one will or must do something.

1759. Ms Ní Chuilín: It is the same in Irish.

1760. Ms Lo: The strength of those two words is very different.

1761. The Clerk of Bills: That is absolutely true when the words are taken in simple terms; for example, if there is a paragraph or sentence on its own, without qualification. However, the draughtsman is saying that, in this instance, it is necessary to do more reading to get the full meaning. Therefore, the context is important. I am not apologising for the draughtsman; rather, I am saying that that seems to be where he is coming from.

1762. The Committee’s options are that it can table an amendment for discussion at Consideration Stage, or it can speak to clause stand part and raise it as an issue at Consideration Stage and get a full explanation from the Minister in lay terms. The Minister will have to make it intelligible for the House to accept it. If the Committee is not satisfied at that stage, it can table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage.

1763. The Chairperson: I understand, or at least I think I do; I will not say that I definitely understand. I take Alex’s point that we, as ordinary members, find it strange that one word change will have such ramifications. I understand the Clerk of Bills and Stephen’s explanation that “may" cannot be taken in isolation because it is only one element of the Bill. However, there is some degree of concern among members and, as Fra mentioned, other stakeholders are equally concerned. Are members of a mind to table an amendment or to raise it as a matter of concern and seek assurance in the House?

1764. Mr Brady: As someone whose first language is, allegedly, English —

1765. The Chairperson: Do you still struggle?

1766. Mr Brady: I sometimes do. “May" and “shall" are two completely separate words. Anna Lo made that point.

1767. Another consideration is the question of whom the assurances come from. Do they come from those who will implement the Bill, or merely from officials who have talked to people who have drafted it? Ultimately, as has been stated, organisations go by the letter of the law and interpret the legislation as it is written, not according to assurances given three or four years previously. We need to get it right now, so that no one will point out at a later stage that the legislation says “may" rather than “shall". That is important.

1768. Ms Ní Chuilín: We will be able to suggest an amendment to the Bill even after Consideration Stage.

1769. The Chairperson: Yes; if we are not happy with the assurances given, we can do that.

1770. Ms Ní Chuilín: Feelings on the issue run strong. If one of my youngsters asked me whether he could go out, I might say “I don’t know", but if he kept asking me and I eventually said “aye, I shall let you out", that would be more definitive. That is plain English.

1771. The Chairperson: I did not know that you were so polite at home. [Laughter].

1772. Ms Ní Chuilín: That is the difference for a lot of people. To give this a fair wind, we could hear what the Minister has to say at Consideration Stage and if we are still of the view that it is not clear, we can return to it and put our minds to it.

1773. The Chairperson: That is probably the wisest course. We will take up the suggestion of the Clerk of Bills and seek assurance at Consideration Stage. If we are unhappy, we still have the option of proposing an amendment at Further Consideration Stage. It seems a bit fussy over one word, but members and other stakeholders are concerned about it.

1774. Mr Burns: That is all part of Committee work. If people are unhappy with a word in the Bill or with a clause, this is the proper place to say so. If an issue is brought to our attention and someone suggests an amendment, this is where the decision is taken on whether to propose that amendment. Like others, I find it fascinating that one word, which seems very simple to us, carries such weight and that changing “may" to “shall" would necessitate the rewriting of that whole clause. How do we get that simple message across? From a layman’s point of view, there has been a tremendous amount of talk about very little.

1775. The Chairperson: We may need pictures or diagrams.

1776. Ms Ní Chuilín: Bring my youngsters in as witnesses and they can tell the difference between “you may go out" and “you shall not go out".

1777. The Chairperson: Are members agreed that, to use the correct terminology, we will speak to the clause stand part and decide whether we accept the assurances given?

1778. Mr Brady: This reinforces the idea that one is not supposed to understand legislation.

1779. The Chairperson: Do members agree that we should take that approach?

Members indicated assent.

1780. The Chairperson: The Committee considered whether local councils should be added to the list of organisations that are required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions, which is found in proposed new article 6A(5), on pages 1-2 of the Bill. The Department indicated that it did not believe that councils had a significant role in respect of homelessness.

1781. The Committee Clerk had undertaken to provide further briefing material on the role of councils in respect of homelessness. In members’ packs there is a paper by the Assembly Research and Library Services that outlines the duties of local authorities in other jurisdictions with regard to homelessness and provides information on the current role of councils in Northern Ireland with regard to homelessness. The paper indicates that no explicit homelessness functions are to transfer to councils; however, the councils will have related responsibilities in respect of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and housing unfitness. David has raised that point with the Committee previously.

1782. Mr Martin: We have discussed this with the Minister, who is content to table a departmental amendment to include councils, primarily because we cannot anticipate where the power of well-being in community planning will lead. Therefore, it seems wholly appropriate to include councils.

1783. The Chairperson: Are members happy with that, subject to confirmation of the final wording later this month?

Members indicated assent.

1784. The Chairperson: We move to the proposed amendment whereby the Committee agreed that the Prison Service should be added to the list of organisations at article 6A(5). The bodies that are cited in that paragraph are required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions. The Department made a response indicating that it would introduce an amendment in line with the Committee’s proposal. The Department now advises that that amendment is more problematic than was first believed because — wait for it — the Prison Service is not a legal entity. [Laughter.] That is an admission of irony.

1785. Mr Martin: It is somewhat ironic. However, as is the case with the Social Security Agency, the Prison Service does not have any standing in law. It is not named in statute; it is an agency within the Northern Ireland Office and, therefore, it cannot be referred to in law. The Bill seems to deal with it in a roundabout way. Essentially, however, it places a duty on the Prison Service to take the strategy into account. Article 6A(5)(f) states that the Secretary of State has a duty: “in relation to any function exercisable in connection with prisons".

1786. That is a roundabout way of placing the duty on the Prison Service. Unfortunately, because the Prison Service is not named in statute, there is no alternative, and that is the best that we can deliver.

1787. Ms Ní Chuilín: I was going to say something ironic, but I will resist the temptation. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is responsible for the healthcare of prisoners, and that duty was transferred about a year and a half or two years ago. It would be worth cross-checking that. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has responsibility for the health and social well-being of prisoners. If there is no statutory obligation —

1788. Mr Martin: Perhaps I could mention the other amendment that we propose to bring to the Committee next week. We believe that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should be mentioned as a further body that needs to take the homelessness strategy into account.

1789. Ms Ní Chuilín: That might cover it.

1790. The Chairperson: If an incident happened in prison and an individual wanted to sue, the case would be listed as that individual v the Secretary of State. That is an extension of what we are saying.

1791. Mr Martin: Yes.

1792. The Chairperson: Those individuals can sue the Secretary of State.

1793. Mr Martin: Yes.

1794. The Chairperson: Are members content with that explanation? It seems reasonable in the circumstances.

Members indicated assent.

1795. The Chairperson: We have agreed to abandon the amendment in respect of the Prison Service, but we will await the final wording regarding the Department of Health, Social Services and Pubic Safety.

1796. Ms Ní Chuilín: We will wait for the final wording before abandoning it.

1797. The Chairperson: OK. Do members agree to await the final wording on the amendment with regard to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 1 referred for further consideration.

Clause 2 (Duty of Executive to provide advice)

1798. The Chairperson: Members considered the evidence from the Housing Rights Service, which suggested that clause 2 be amended so that there would be an explicit duty to provide preventative homelessness advice. The Housing Rights Service used slightly different wording; it was not so explicit with regard to preventative advice. Does the Committee accept the evidence presented by the Housing Rights Service, and does it wish to include such an amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1799. The Chairperson: I ask the Department to respond on that.

1800. Mr Martin: The Department is prepared to draft an amendment that would give the Department power to produce guidance in respect of that duty to which the Housing Executive shall have regard, and we will bring that to the Committee for consideration next week.

1801. The Chairperson: Will that amendment be to clause 2 or clause 4?

1802. Mr Martin: It will be an amendment to clause 2.

1803. The Chairperson: Are members happy to await the final wording of that amendment next week?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 2 referred for further consideration.

Clause 5 (Reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness)

1804. The Chairperson: The detail on clause 5 is contained in the Committee’s scrutiny table. Members were previously minded to propose an amendment to extend the period during which a review of decisions could requested from 21 days to 28 days. The Department has advised that the wording of the proposed amendment will be available to the Committee on 12 November 2009. Are Members agreed to consider the wording of that amendment at that stage?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 5 referred for further consideration.

Clause 10 (Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policies and procedure)

1805. The Chairperson: The detail on clause 10 is contained in the Committee’s scrutiny table. Members did not support any amendments to clause 10. However, it requested further information on issues that had been raised. The Department’s response of 2 November 2009, which is included in members’ briefing packs, refers to that issue. Do the witnesses wish to add anything to that response?

1806. Mr Stephen Baird (Department for Social Development): The Department has spoken to the Housing Executive about the issue of antisocial behaviour, and it has been told that its policy is not to transfer tenants if an investigation into antisocial behaviour is ongoing.

1807. The Housing Executive recognises that it is not good housing management practice to transfer problems from one area to another, and the Department shares that view. However, to reinforce that, the Department wants to issue explicit guidance to the Housing Executive to the effect that those with a history of antisocial behaviour are not to be moved. Therefore, the Department wants to make an amendment to the housing selection scheme to give the Housing Executive the power to refuse to transfer someone on the basis of antisocial behaviour. It is a matter of guidance in the first instance, followed by an amendment to the selection scheme.

1808. The Chairperson: Will that require an amendment to the Housing (Amendment) Bill?

1809. Mr Baird: No.

1810. The Chairperson: OK. That sounds quite positive. Obviously, the Committee will have sight of that detail at a later stage. Are members content with that?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 10 referred for further consideration.

Clause 12 (Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive)

1811. The Chairperson: The detail on clause 12 is contained in the Committee’s scrutiny table. The Committee has previously considered the issue of enhanced democratisation of the Housing Executive. It also considered proposing an amendment to clause 12 to increase the Housing Council’s representation on the board of the Housing Executive, or to allow a tenancy advocate to be appointed. The Committee received evidence from the Housing Council that an increase to four or more members was a matter for the Minister’s discretion. I wrote to the Minister about those issues and the response is included in members’ packs.

1812. Do the witnesses wish to add anything to the Minister’s response?

1813. Mr Martin: No. I have nothing to add, but I am happy to answer any questions that Committee members may have.

1814. The Chairperson: Does anyone have any questions on that issue? The Committee was previously minded to consider proposing an amendment to clause 12.

1815. Perhaps I should give members a few moments to read the Minister’s response. However, to summarise, the Minister essentially declined the opportunity to allow an increase in the membership.

1816. Mr F McCann: Is the Minister declining to increase the representation from the Housing Council?

1817. The Chairperson: Yes.

1818. Mr F McCann: Other suggestions were made by the Committee.

1819. The Chairperson: Yes. With respect to tenants becoming members, the Minister’s response was that tenants can apply for membership of the board of the Housing Executive, but that there is no desire to set a specific place aside for them.

1820. Mr F McCann: What is the mechanism for that?

1821. The Chairperson: I do not wish to speak for the Minister. However, I believe that she is saying that tenants can apply to become members of the board, and, if successful, they would be appointed on the basis of merit through the application process. Is that correct, Stephen?

1822. Mr Martin: Yes; that is correct. The Department also provides substantial funding to Supporting Communities Northern Ireland, which works with tenants. It is wholly appropriate for that organisation to work with tenants to build their capacity so that they are in a position to apply for membership of the board of the Housing Executive. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

1823. Mr Craig: Has the Minister given any reasons for not wanting to increase the democratic representation of the board of the Housing Executive?

1824. Mr Martin: I have spoken to the Minister about that issue. When she took office, one of the recommendations of the review of public administration was to abolish the Housing Council. She reversed that decision, strengthened the council’s remit and brought in Professor Colin Knox to support it. In addition, every two months, she appears before the council. We, as departmental officials, along with the Housing Executive, appear before it every month. Therefore, she is doing a lot to strengthen links and accountability in respect of local government.

1825. The Minister also favours the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies, which is about basing selections on merit. Although a small number of public bodies have chosen to go against that principle, more have aligned themselves to it, and that is where she wants to be. Once one takes the chairperson and the vice-chairperson out of the Housing Executive’s board, 50% of the remaining eight board members are also members of the Housing Council, which, along with the other measures that she has introduced with respect to the council, she feels is sufficient to ensure democratic accountability.

1826. The Chairperson: The Housing Council amendment that we considered initially was for its representation on the board to increase to four or more members. It did not suggest a definitive increase to five. Rather, it was an attempt to give the Minister some discretion, and we should bear that in mind. Jonathan, do you wish to respond?

1827. Mr Craig: No. I am just interested to hear why she would not do it.

1828. Ms Ní Chuilín: I am not minded to increase the Housing Council’s level of representation at all.

1829. The Chairperson: Even to allow flexibility?

1830. Ms Ní Chuilín: No.

1831. Ms Lo: How many people are on the Housing Executive board?

1832. Mr Martin: There are 10 board members: the chairperson, the vice-chairperson, and eight members, four of whom are from the Housing Council.

1833. The Chairperson: In order to move forward, are members happy to accept the Minister’s response and not to seek an amendment, or do we want to take a bit more time to consider the matter and come back to it? I am seeking the Committee’s guidance.

1834. Ms Lo: I am happy with the Minister’s response.

1835. Ms Ní Chuilín: It will not do any harm if we take a bit more time to come back to it. That would give us a chance to speak to our parties.

1836. The Chairperson: We can defer our final consideration of the matter until next week.

Clause 12 referred for further consideration.

Clause 14 (Definition of “house in multiple occupation")

1837. The Chairperson: Clause 14 refers to houses in multiple occupation. Members are reminded of the Committee’s support for the amendment to extend the HMO definition of “family" to include uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces, subject to a review of the final wording. The Department has advised that the wording of that amendment will be available at the 12 November meeting. Do members agree that we consider the final wording at next week’s meeting?

Members indicated assent.

Clause 14 referred for further consideration.

1838. The Chairperson: We turn to additional amendments that do not relate to specific clauses. The Committee considered whether clauses should be added to the Bill that would require the Department to devise a code of conduct for the directors and employees of housing associations in respect of conflicts of interest. The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of that issue until it had received departmental clarification in respect of the current arrangements relating to conflicts of interest. The Department’s correspondence to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations in respect of this matter is included in members’ briefing papers.

1839. Mr Martin: The Department made it clear to the federation that the existing power in article 31 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 is flexible and that some associations appear to have erroneously interpreted it. We are strongly of the view that no change is needed to the law in respect of that matter.

1840. The Chairperson: The Department’s letter states: “For clarification purposes it should be realised that a perceived conflict of interest can only arise if it involves someone who has a key role in the decision making process (ie involved in negotiations, approvals, monitoring etc). In effect, someone who would be in a position to actually influence or direct a specific course of action to suit their own or others purposes."

1841. Therefore, is the example that was previously sketched out for us, involving the association between a cleaner and a builder or a developer, incorrect and inaccurate?

1842. Mr Martin: It is absolutely incorrect. Even in the case of a decision-maker, if a conflict of interest were flagged up and that person were to step back from the selection process, that applicant would not be ruled out.

1843. Mr F McCann: I know that when a person takes employment with a council and some other organisations in which a relative is already employed, the person must register that fact. Is it not enough for people in that situation to declare an interest when they have to deal with it? It seems a bit rough to penalise people whose brother, sister or other relative is already employed by an organisation by barring them from a job for which they wish to apply because that relative is seen to have an interest.

1844. The Chairperson: It is not a difficulty as long as the potential conflict is identified and signalled and the relevant individual is no longer part of the process. The difficulty comes if the person does not do that and —

1845. Mr F McCann: takes part in the process.

1846. The Chairperson: That could potentially prejudice the whole process.

1847. Ms Ní Chuilín: The code of conduct would become enforceable if someone did not declare a conflict of interest.

1848. Mr Martin: That is where we, as the regulator, would step in through our inspection process. We would take fairly robust action in such a situation. As the Chairperson said, providing that the conflict of interest were acknowledged and the relevant person were to step back from and have no involvement in the decision-making process, there would be no problem and no conflict with the existing law.

1849. Ms Ní Chuilín: If a person were not to do that, you could bring in an enforcement process.

1850. Mr Martin: Yes.

1851. Ms Lo: That is standard procedure in any organisation, whether it is a written or unwritten policy. That is a normal code of practice.

1852. The Chairperson: Are members content not to seek an amendment on that matter?

Members indicated assent.

1853. The Chairperson: A possible amendment on registered rents was suggested. The Committee was minded to support an amendment on the procedure for the review of registered rents. Some final wording is to come back from the Department, which was content with that amendment.

1854. Mr Martin: We have spoken to the draftsman. That amendment will be drafted, and we will bring it to next week’s Committee meeting.

1855. The Chairperson: Are members content to consider that amendment at next week’s meeting?

Members indicated assent.

1856. The Chairperson: The table refers to the reform of the common housing selection scheme. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of that matter until it had received an update from the Department. Members have a copy of the Department’s response to that possible amendment. Can the witnesses elaborate on that?

1857. Mr Martin: There were two issues. First, some members said that the scheme should be amended, and we said that that would not be done as part of this Bill, but the Minister has asked departmental officials to work with the Housing Executive on modernisation. Some of the issues that were raised last week will form part of that process.

1858. The second issue related to a review period. Our understanding was that some members felt that there should be a specific period in law in which the common housing selection scheme would be reviewed. It is a living document that has been updated seven times since it was introduced in 2000. As my colleague Stephen Baird said, we will ask for a further update to provide for sanctions on antisocial behaviour. We ask frequently for updates, so we do not necessarily see any merit in such an amendment. It is a living document that is amended frequently.

1859. Mr F McCann: I am tough on that issue because the scheme may have been reviewed seven times, but I have been to at least seven meetings with former Ministers, departmental officials and officials from the Housing Executive at which I have raised specific issues. I said that, if the selection scheme were tweaked in certain places, it would allow for a system that people could flow out of, rather than being stuck in hostels for four or five years. That would take other people into consideration in areas of high demand.

1860. During the years when I raised that issue, many people agreed that there was a difficulty and problem with the system and that it needed to be dealt with, but nothing has ever been done. I find it difficult to accept that anything will be done in the next review. There are serious problems in many constituencies of people being in hostels and remaining there for lengthy periods. Adjusting the system would allow them to flow out.

1861. The Chairperson: The issue may be whether legislation is the right way in which to amend the arrangements. Your concerns are valid and the need to address them will be made clear to the Department. Paragraph 9 of the letter states: “The Department is currently looking at whether the Scheme requires further modernisation. This work is at an early stage and will include consideration of a range of issues, including the account taken of waiting time and the allocation of sharing points."

1862. The Committee can ensure that the points raised by Fra McCann are included in that review.

1863. Mr F McCann: I have no difficulty in accepting that approach; however, I must emphasise that the Department’s response was that the issue had been reviewed seven times, yet the issue has still not been addressed. I would like some guarantees. I accept that that may not be done through legislation, but if we have guarantees from the Department that the matter will be dealt with, the Committee can return to it.

1864. The Chairperson: I expect that the Committee will be asked for its views. In fact, it could insist on having some input. All members have seen in their own areas that the common selection scheme sometimes does not work for individuals in certain circumstances. It must be reviewed, and if the Committee seeks an assurance today that it will be involved in that process and that the issues raised by Fra McCann are addressed, are members content with the rest of the suggestion?

1865. Mr Martin: The Department indicated to Mr McCann last week that it was happy to take on board those points and to update the Committee when that work is further down the track.

1866. The Chairperson: Are members content with the following suggestion?

“That clauses be added relating to the reform of the Common Housing Selection Scheme specifically:

That the Common Housing Selection Scheme be amended to award 20 points to an applicant for every 6 months they stay in hostel accommodation;

That the Common Housing Selection Scheme be amended to allocate an additional 10 points to applicants with a mental or physical illness;

That NIHE undertake a review of the Common Housing Selection Scheme every 3 years to ensure equality of opportunity for all applicants".

Members indicated assent.

1867. The Chairperson: I remind members to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off, because we are experiencing interference with the sound recording system. I must check my own; I think that I may have been somewhat guilty in this instance.

1868. We move to the suggestion in the table that states:

“That clauses be added relating to the mandatory registration of private landlords".

1869. The Committee had agreed to defer consideration of this proposed amendment. The Department’s response of 27 October in members’ papers refers to the legislative timetable relating to the private rented sector. Does Mr Martin wish to add anything on behalf of the Department?

1870. Mr Martin: No.

1871. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Committee must start discussing details of what the timetable might look like if that measure is to be included in the Bill.

1872. The Chairperson: In what way would the member be seeking to amend the Bill in that respect?

1873. Ms Ní Chuilín: The Committee’s suggestion is: “That clauses be added relating to the mandatory registration of private landlords".

1874. Therefore, we must bring forward a clause that might be added to the Bill.

1875. The Chairperson: Is the suggestion that the Clerk of Bills draft an amendment along those lines, which can be brought back to members for consideration?

1876. Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, please.

1877. Mr F McCann: We will be talking to the Clerk of Bills after the meeting to get the wording right.

1878. Ms Ní Chuilín: Is that fair enough? In that event, all members will be able to consider the amendment.

1879. The Chairperson: The Committee can see it and consider it at that stage. I am happy with that.

1880. Mr Martin: It took four years in Scotland to develop a sensible registration scheme. The Department believes that trying to legislate on registration in haste will necessitate a lot of unpicking and redoing later. We believe that a more appropriate vehicle for dealing with registration will be the next Bill, which will come before the Committee in 2010, and the Department is currently developing proposals on the regulation of the private rented sector. Those proposals will come to the Committee for scrutiny during the passage of the next Bill. It would be very difficult to draft something now that is workable.

1881. The Chairperson: Will the second Bill deal with a broad range of issues on the private rented sector, including registration?

1882. Mr Martin: Yes. I do not think that the Minister has taken a final view on the exact form of regulation, but if that does not go far enough in the Committee’s opinion, the Committee may wish to table amendments at that point.

1883. The Chairperson: If an amendment to require registration is tabled, that would impact on a broader range of issues. The witnesses are saying that it would be better to do that at a time when you are looking at a broader range of measures.

1884. Mr Martin: Yes — when members can see the broader range of proposals from the Department on future regulation of the private rented sector.

1885. Mr F McCann: I appreciate that, but the Minister has made it quite clear that she is not in favour of the mandatory registration of landlords, both on the Floor of the Assembly and before the Committee. We have gone through a fairly lengthy process of consultation, and my understanding is that the vast majority of the voluntary housing sector has called for the mandatory registration of landlords. The Department will advise the Minister on the way forward; will it recommend the mandatory registration of landlords to the Minister? That will colour the Committee’s decision.

1886. Mr Martin: That is no longer my area of direct policy responsibility. My understanding is that, on the basis of the feedback from the consultation process, the Minister has agreed to re-examine the issue of registration. I am not sure whether she has made a decision on the proposals, but there are interlinked aspects in respect of the registration of the private rented sector. To look at one in isolation, without looking at the total package, would be a little bit —

1887. Mr F McCann: The Department and the Housing Executive, through the Minister, are examining how they can widen the remit of the private rented sector to take up the slack for the lack of newbuild public housing. Roughly £88 million of taxpayers’ money is being paid to the private rented sector through housing benefit, and that will seriously increase over the coming months. I think that it is terrible that we are not actively discussing how to operate a proper registration system for a non-registered sector that gets so much government money. If community structures or organisations were getting that money, the Department would be all over them, demanding accountability. There is no accountability, and that is why the Committee is being fairly hard on this issue.

1888. Mr Martin: The consultation on the private rented sector strategy ended only on 7 August: three months ago. When such issues were considered in England, Wales and Scotland, it took a number of years before sensible proposals could be developed for legislation. We are talking about doing this within a much tighter time frame. Our view is that to try to do something earlier than that is likely to lead to an unworkable system. I caution members about attempting to legislate for that in this Bill.

1889. Mr F McCann: I first proposed the registration of landlords in October 2007, and I was supported by the Assembly. At that stage, we were told that a Bill was being introduced and that a package would emerge. The date for that was supposed to have been last March. It has taken years to get even to this stage. We need to learn from the mistakes of other jurisdictions, and we can find a mechanism whereby we can implement a registration process.

1890. The Chairperson: If Fra and Carál want to consult with the Committee Clerk and the Clerk of Bills about a possible amendment that could be brought before the Committee, it could be considered at next week’s meeting. Equally, if it were possible for the Department to come back with a more clear position from the Minister, that might be helpful too. Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated assent.

1891. The Chairperson: Members had previously agreed not to take forward amendments related to homelessness and prisoners. I presume that members are happy to note the additional correspondence on that issue from NIACRO.

1892. I thank Mr Martin and Mr Baird for their attendance and their responses. We will invite you back next week for another instalment — same time, same place. We must be nearly there by now. There is some light at the end of the tunnel.

1893. I thank members for their patience during the formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. The final wording of amendments and the report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules will be considered next week. All being well, a report will be available for our consideration the following week.

12 November 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Alex Easton
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr David Hilditch
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

Witnesses:

1894. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): The Committee will now resume its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. I remind members that the Committee deferred consideration of a small number of amendments until today’s meeting. It is essential that the Committee reaches agreement on all amendments at this meeting in order to comply with reporting requirements.

1895. The Department has submitted the final wording for all the amendments that it currently intends to support, and those are shown in the Committee’s revised scrutiny table. It is intended that all amendments will be included in the Bill report, which will be available for Committee approval at our meeting of 19 November.

1896. Delegated powers relating to the Housing (Amendment) Bill have been reviewed by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The key issues arising from his report are set out in the Committee Clerk’s cover note under the heading of delegated powers. Members’ information packs include: the revised scrutiny table, which shows the departmental wording of amendments and Consideration Stage actions; the report by the Examiner of Statutory Rules on delegated powers; and the Minister’s response on the Housing Executive board.

1897. Departmental officials Stephen Martin and Stephen Baird, who are gluttons for punishment, are here once again to assist the Committee in its clause-by-clause scrutiny. I remind everyone, including the officials, to ensure that all mobile phones are switched off so that they do not interfere with the recording of this session.

1898. To ensure a smooth clause-by-clause scrutiny, members should refer to their revised scrutiny table and a copy of the Bill. If they keep those close at hand, they will not go wrong. After I have drawn attention to each of the areas that are unresolved, I will ask the departmental officials and members for their comments.

Clause 1 (Homelessness Strategy)

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 2, line 4, at end insert

“( ) district councils;". — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1899. The Chairperson: As Members know, clause 1 is about the Housing Executive’s duty to produce a homelessness strategy and for certain bodies to take account of the strategy in the exercise of their functions. At last week’s meeting, the Department indicated that it will agree to a Government amendment to include district councils in the list of organisations that are required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions. Does the Clerk of Bills wish to add anything?

1900. The Clerk of Bills: The only point that I wish to make is that those amendments would be selectable anyway, because they are Government amendments. They are not major amendments and pose no difficulty from an Executive point of view.

1901. The Chairperson: If no members wish to comment on the amendment in respect of councils, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 2, line 9, at end insert

“( ) the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety,". — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1902. The Chairperson: The Department advised that the proposed amendment to add the Prison Service to the list of organisations at proposed new article 6A(5) was problematic. It instead proposed to introduce an amendment to add the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to the list of organisations that must take the homelessness strategy into account at proposed new article 6A(5). We understand that that Department has responsibility for the health of prisoners. Does the Clerk of Bills wish to add anything?

1903. The Clerk of Bills: No; my initial comment applies to all the amendments.

1904. The Chairperson: If members do not wish to comment on the amendment, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

1905. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendments, put and agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Duty of Executive to provide advice)

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 4, line 4, at end insert

“(4) In relation to the form and content of advice under paragraph (1) the Executive shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Department." — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1906. The Chairperson: Clause 2 refers to the Housing Executive’s duty to provide homelessness advice. Last week, the Committee heard further evidence from the Housing Rights Service regarding a proposed amendment to be inserted at the end of clause 2. The Committee agreed to accept that amendment. The Department has also agreed to support the proposed amendment and has submitted suggested wording for consideration by the Committee. The Department has indicated that the amendment that it has submitted will allow it to prescribe the homelessness advice provided by the Housing Executive. Do Members wish to comment on the amendment?

1907. Mr F McCann: Last week, we had an argument about the different meanings of “shall", “will", “must" and “should". Where do we stand on that in respect of the amendment?

1908. The Chairperson: We like “shall"; that our the rule of thumb.

1909. The amendment will put a duty on the Housing Executive to have regard for any guidance issued by the Department.

1910. If members do not have any further comments, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

1911. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Power of Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance)

1912. The Chairperson: Given the amendment to clause 2 based on the proposal from the Housing Rights Service, are members now content with clause 4 as drafted?

Members indicated assent.

1913. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness)

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 5, line 14, leave out “21" and insert “28". — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 6, line 19, leave out “21" and insert “28". — [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1914. The Chairperson: Members are minded to support an amendment that would extend the period during which a review of homelessness decisions could be requested from 21 to 28 days. The Department undertook to support that amendment and submitted proposed wording for the Committee’s consideration.

1915. Have members any comments on the wording of the amendment? It is straightforward. Are members content to agree that amendment?

Members indicated assent.

1916. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendments, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive)

1917. The Chairperson: This clause refers to representation on the Housing Council on the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Members considered the issue of enhanced democratisation of the Housing Executive board and were minded to explore an amendment that might increase Housing Council representation or add a tenancy advocate to the Housing Executive board. I wrote to the Minister on those issues and at last week’s meeting the Committee agreed to reconsider the Minister’s response of 31 October, to determine whether it meets the Committee’s concerns in relation to the need to improve the democratic accountability of the Housing Executive.

1918. The Minister advised that she was not minded to increase Housing Council representation or add a tenancy advocate to the board. She suggested that the usual public appointment procedures would be sufficient to ensure appropriate representation on the board. The Department has also submitted to the Committee a copy of an information pack for prospective board members.

1919. Do members want to state any views about pursuing an amendment? Last week several members indicated that they did not want to pursue an amendment at this stage and wanted to hold back for a while. Is there any change to that position? Have those who said previously that they did not want to pursue an amendment changed their position?

1920. Mr F McCann: We were not concerned about the political representation but about other representation. The argument we were given was that that was already in place.

1921. The Chairperson: My view and that of my party is that it is desirable to increase democratic representation on all public bodies. However, given the position outlined by others, we find ourselves in a minority. Shall I take it that the Committee is content not to pursue amendments in respect of increasing Housing Council representation or the appointment to the board of a tenancy advocate or representative?

1922. Mr F McCann: There are a number of people on the board of the Housing Executive. I thought that last week we were given information to the effect that at least one of those people represents the tenant’s point of view; is that the case?

1923. Mr Stephen Martin (Department for Social Development): Not quite; there is no tenant on the board. Given the Committee’s view on tenant representation, the Department will look into what it can do further to encourage tenants to apply and support them in making an application for appointment to the board. We will look at our processes to see whether we can do that. Given the existence of the public appointments process, that is as far as we can go.

1924. The Chairperson: The Committee is supportive of the idea of tenant representation but it is appreciative of the problems relating to that, such as the need to increase the capabilities of people in that sector to apply for membership of the board. The Department has given an assurance that applications from that sector will be encouraged in a practical way.

1925. Mr Martin: Yes, absolutely.

1926. Mr F McCann: I take that, when the Housing Executive advertises for board members, people from that sector are eligible to apply?

1927. Mr Martin: Absolutely, and within the bounds of the Commissioner’s guidance, we can target particular individuals or types of people to encourage them to apply. As with any job, that can be done legitimately. We will use that latitude to do all that we can to encourage more applications from tenants and others.

1928. Mr F McCann: I am conscious that pushing for more tenants to apply will lead to the expansion of the size of the Housing Executive board. If it does expand, the Department will have to remove members.

1929. The Chairperson: Given that the Committee is not minded to support an increase in the Housing Council’s representation, I will put the Question.

1930. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Definition of ‘house in multiple occupation’)

Question proposed :

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the Clause be amended as follows: In page 14, line 27, leave out from beginning to ‘Article’ in line 29 and insert

“at the end add ‘and for that purpose’".— [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1931. The Chairperson: Clause 14 refers to houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). If members consider the relevant page in their papers, they will see that they were minded to support an amendment that limits the extension of the definition of family to include no more than uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. The Department’s proposed amendment is included in the same section of our papers.

1932. Ms Lo: How does that leave clause 14?

1933. The Chairperson: I will let the experts explain.

1934. Mr Martin: If the amendment were to be accepted, clause 14 would read: “In Article 75(1) of the Order of 1992, (meaning of “multiple occupation") for the purposes of this article, family includes uncle and nephew and niece."

1935. That is our reading of the complete clause as it would be amended. We are saying that the Department is not minded to widen the definition of the number of families, but, for the purposes of HMOs, family will include aunt, uncle, nephew and niece. That is all that the amendment does.

1936. Mr F McCann: Does that comply with housing rights?

1937. The Chairperson: Most of the evidence to the Committee welcomed the extension of the definition of a family but not an increase in numbers, and that view was shared by the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

1938. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Committee’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 14 agreed to.

New Clause

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly the following new clause: After clause 16 insert

“Amendment of Article 55 of the Order of 2006

16A. In Article 55 of the Order of 2006 (review of registered rents) at the end add —

‘(8) An order under paragraph (5) shall be subject to negative resolution.’" – [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1939. The Chairperson: The Committee was minded to support an amendment to the Assembly procedure on the review of registered rents, subject to a review of the final wording. The wording of the proposed new clause is in members’ papers. The Department has said that the amendment would add that the Assembly should deal with registered rents via the negative resolution procedure. The Examiner of Statutory Rules has confirmed that the Department’s amendment is competent. Do members have any comment? Are members content with the wording of the amendment and for the new clause to be added?

Question put and agreed to.

1940. The Chairperson: We now turn to the mandatory registration of private landlords, which is an additional issue. The Committee agreed that the Clerk should submit for consideration a draft amendment on the mandatory registration of private landlords.

1941. A review of the issue suggested that the drafting of such an amendment would be a significant task. The issues involved include the timescale for implementation of registration; designation of landlords to be registered, for example, all private landlords, HMO landlords or landlords in receipt of housing benefit only; the applicability and costs of implementation; the sanctions, if any, to be applied in a case of non-compliance; the enforcement responsibility; and, primarily, the absence of local consultation on the options for registration.

1942. What are members’ views? We do not have a draft in front of us, but the Committee has a range of options. First, we could devise and adopt an amendment. Secondly, we could await the second housing Bill that we discussed last week, on which the Department will brief us in January. Thirdly, if members feel strongly about mandatory registration, the Committee has the option to introduce its own Bill. Do members have strong thoughts one way or the other?

1943. Mr F McCann: I know that Carál Ní Chuilín raised that issue on several occasions. Unfortunately, she cannot be here this morning. I have spoken to the Committee Clerk, and I have looked through the equivalent legislation in other jurisdictions. The task would be time-consuming for the Committee Clerk or anyone who deal with such matters. We feel strongly about the issue. The Scottish legislation, which was specifically brought in to deal with antisocial activity, was expanded. With a couple of exceptions, we could probably lift that legislation to suit our purposes. Given the consultation that has taken place and the fact that the vast majority of people have indicated that they want the mandatory registration of landlords, I am not convinced that the Minister and the Department will act on that in the Bill. If possible, the Committee should discuss drawing up legislation that would allow us to include mandatory registration.

1944. The Chairperson: Let us narrow our options. We are happy not to pursue an amendment at this stage. Without jumping forward, we have an idea of the Minister’s opinion. Without prejudging that, perhaps it is best to wait for a briefing in January on what would be included in a second Bill. We could make our minds up at that stage. There is always the option of amending the second Bill rather than pursuing an entirely separate piece of legislation.

1945. Mr F McCann: In the meantime, the Committee Clerk or the Assembly researchers could examine what such a Bill that would draw on legislation in other jurisdictions would look like.

1946. The Clerk of Bills: Fra is absolutely right. The Scots have done a fair amount of work; their legislation is a major piece of work. The quickest way to take this matter forward is to wait for the second Bill. To attempt to amend the Housing (Amendment) Bill will require the injection of a whole new policy.

1947. Mr F McCann: I will take that on board.

1948. Ms Lo: I understand the rationale, but we need to be more proactive in pursuing the matter. We need to put down a marker that we want mandatory registration.

1949. The Chairperson: We can raise the issue in our report, even though we are not making a recommendation. Members might raise the issue in the Chamber as well. Perhaps we can ask the Committee Clerk to write a paper in advance of the January briefing that will provide us with better information to think about, and which could draw on the legislation in other jurisdictions.

1950. Ms Lo: Did the Department say that the second Bill would be introduced in 2011?

1951. Mr Martin: The Bill is currently with the Executive, awaiting their approval for it to go out to consultation. The Bill will be introduced sometime before summer recess and will come to the Committee either before summer recess or in September, with a view to it becoming law before the end of this Assembly’s mandate, which we understand to be March 2011. That is our current working timetable.

1952. Ms Lo: That is for the second Bill?

1953. Mr Martin: Yes.

1954. Ms Lo: We do not have a lot of time, then, to have consultation on mandatory registration. It is a tight timetable, even if it is scheduled to become law in 2011.

1955. Mr Martin: It is tight, but, at this point in time, it is still achievable, and that is what we aim to do.

1956. Ms Lo: The Committee must be proactive in saying that we want mandatory registration.

1957. Mr F McCann: We were going to pursue the inclusion of mandatory registration in the Housing (Amendment) Bill, but given the advice of the Clerk of Bills and others, we acknowledge that it is a big piece of work that would delay the Bill. However, the Committee can examine the option of introducing its own Bill if we are not happy with developments.

1958. The Chairperson: The Committee has agreed to wait until the briefing on the second Bill. Between now and then, we can better form our thoughts on the matter.

1959. Mr Brady: Regardless of the methodology used, the mandatory registration of landlords is important. It is particularly important with regard to the private-rented sector, which receives in the region of £80 million of public funding and provides approximately 70% of “social housing". That must be addressed. Although the methodology means that it is not practical to table amendments, we should not be distracted from our aim of introducing mandatory registration.

1960. The Chairperson: Everyone agrees that that is an important issue and that the Committee should look at it. Between now and our briefing on the second Bill, we can better inform ourselves so that we are in a much better position to address the issue. Are Members happy to take that approach?

Members indicated assent.

1961. The Chairperson: I refer members to the report on delegated powers by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, in which he raises an issue with article 148 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and its impact on the making of regulations. It mentions the provision enabling the Department to:

“make regulations prescribing the form of landlord’s notice where introductory tenancy appears to have been abandoned."

Will one of the witnesses from the Department comment on that?

1962. Mr Martin: We realise that there is a mistake in our delegated powers memorandum with regard to prescribing the form of a notice. Clause 9 very clearly sets out the policy context. Within the very narrow confines that would be set by the Assembly when it makes the legislation, the Department would have the power to prescribe what is essentially a legal notice and to tell the Housing Executive and the housing associations what should be in it.

1963. There are a number of similar powers throughout all types of legislation that are often not subject to any Assembly control, because the Assembly has clearly set the policy and there is little room for latitude. That was our intention in this case, and in the delegated powers memorandum we erroneously indicated that we would seek negative resolution.

1964. As clause 9 is going into the Housing Order (Northern Ireland) 2003, article 148 of the Order pertains. Therefore, regulations that prescribe only the content of a particular form are not subject to any form of Assembly control. That was our original intention. We have made a mistake in the delegated powers memorandum — the intention was that article 148 should apply in this case.

1965. The Chairperson: The Examiner of Statutory Rules has advised that the making of regulations that prescribe the form of landlords’ notices for introductory tenancies should be subject to negative resolution procedure and that the Department should consider the repeal of article 148(3)(b). Have you given any consideration to that?

1966. Mr Martin: Yes, we have. There are two issues. First, as there is minimal latitude and no policy content in the regulations, we would prefer the regulations to not be subject to Assembly control. Secondly, we are not sure that there would be much added value in the Committee having to see a range of new regulations. However, if the Committee felt strongly about that, we could exempt this provision from the application of article 148. We could exempt clause 9 from that provision and make it subject to negative resolution procedure. That form would go to the Committee and, if the Committee wanted to see all other such forms, we would make a commitment to repeal article 148 in the next housing Bill and make all forms made under the 2003 Order subject to negative resolution.

1967. I am suggesting a halfway house. You can test the waters in this instance, and if you feel strongly that you would like to see all other regulations of a similar nature, we could give a commitment to repeal article 148 for the whole of the 2003 Order in the next Bill.

1968. The Chairperson: That suggestion seems reasonable, though we may need to check any commitments for any future Bills with the Examiner of Statutory Rules.

1969. Mr Brady: Is Mr Martin saying that the level of Assembly scrutiny is diminished unless all those regulations are subject to negative resolution procedure?

1970. Mr Martin: As it stands, the power for the Department to prescribe the form of a notice to an introductory tenant telling him or her that the tenancy has been abandoned and what is likely to happen is not subject to Assembly scrutiny. There are three options. First, it can be left like that; secondly, we could exempt this particular regulation from that rider and make it subject to negative resolution, as I am suggesting; or, thirdly, we could repeal the overriding part of article 148 of the 2003 Order and make all forms subject to some form of Assembly control. I suggest that the Department seek an amendment to exempt this particular regulation. The regulation would be brought to the Committee, and if the Committee felt strongly that there was a need to see all regulations of a similar nature, the Department would make a commitment to repeal that provision in the next Bill.

1971. Mr Brady

1972. It would have a knock-on effect.

1973. Mr Martin: That is correct.

1974. The Chairperson: We will be able to see whether it would be the sort of thing that should be subject to negative resolution procedure, and, if we want to expand it further, we can do that. Are members happy to take that approach?

Members indicated assent.

1975. The Chairperson: Are members content that the clause-by-clause scrutiny is formally concluded?

Members indicated assent.

1976. The Chairperson: I thank both Stephens from the Department for their faithful attendance and help throughout the Committee meetings.

19 November 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Simon Hamilton (Chairperson)
Mr David Hilditch (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Billy Armstrong
Mrs Mary Bradley
Mr Mickey Brady
Mr Jonathan Craig
Mr Alex Easton
Ms Anna Lo
Mr Fra McCann

1977. The Chairperson (Mr Hamilton): The next item on the agenda is the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Clause 9 (Abandonment of introductory tenancies)

Question proposed:

That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: In page 13, line 20, at end insert

“(5) In Article 148(3)(b) of the Order of 2003 after the word ‘regulations’ insert ‘(other than regulations under Article 19A(3))’."— [The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie).]

1978. The Chairperson: Following last week’s discussion on the report on delegated powers by the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Department has agreed to submit an amendment. The amendment would exempt clause 9, abandonment of introductory tenancies, from the provisions of article 148(3)(b) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. The effect of the amendment will be to require Assembly procedure to be applied to the prescription of a form of a landlord’s notice to a tenant where an introductory tenancy appears to have been abandoned. The Clerk of Bills and the Examiner of Statutory Rules have advised that the amendment is competent. If members are content with the wording of the Department’s proposed amendment, I will put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

1979. The Chairperson: I remind members that the Department also undertook to consider the repeal of article 148(3)(b) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 as part of the second housing Bill. The Committee believes that Assembly procedure could be usefully applied to the prescription of a wide range of housing-related forms. Are members content with the Department’s assurances on that?

Members indicated assent.

1980. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s amendment, put and agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

1981. The Chairperson: That formally concludes clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

1982. Members’ packs include a draft version of the Bill report. Members will have had the opportunity to read that, so we will go through each section, and if anyone has any problems, they can shout out.

1983. The first section is the table of contents; are members happy with that?

Members indicated assent.

1984. The Chairperson: The next section is the executive summary, which runs for two and a half pages. It is all fairly straightforward. Are members content with that section?

Members indicated assent.

1985. The Chairperson: The next section is the introduction; are members happy with that?

Members indicated assent.

1986. The Chairperson: The next section is consideration of the Bill; are members happy with that?

Members indicated assent.

1987. The Chairperson: Finally, are members content with the section on the clause-by-clause scrutiny?

Members indicated assent.

1988. The Chairperson: That was fairly painless.

1989. Are members content for the Committee report on the Housing (Amendment) Bill to be printed?

Members indicated assent.

1990. The Chairperson: A typescript version of the report will be lodged with the Business Office tomorrow. Printed versions of the report should be distributed next week, and the Bill’s Consideration Stage is expected after the Christmas recess.

Appendix 3

Written Submissions

List of Submissions

Ballymena Borough Council 195

Belfast City Council 196

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust 199

Chartered Institute of Housing 201

Citizens Advice 204

Committee for Finance and Personnel 206

Committee for Regional Development 207

Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland 208

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development 212

Department of Education 213

Department for Employment and Learning 216

Department of the Environment 217

Department of Finance and Personnel 218

Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety 219

Department for Regional Development 220

Disability Action 221

Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council 222

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland 224

First Housing Aid & Support Services 233

Fold Housing Association 235

Health and Social Care Board 236

Helm Housing 237

Housing Rights Service 238

Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland 246

Lisburn City Council 250

Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders 251

Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations 299

Northern Ireland Housing Council 301

Northern Ireland Housing Executive 303

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 304

Northern Ireland Local Government Association 312

Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister 314

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister 315

Police Service of Northern Ireland 316

Police Service of Northern Ireland-Criminal Justice Branch 317

Private Rented Sector Consultation Network Northern Ireland 318

Probation Board for Northern Ireland 320

Shelter NI 322

Simon Community Northern Ireland 325

South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust 328

Southern Trust 329

South Tyrone Empowerment Programme 331

Supporting Communities NI 334

Western Health and Social Care Trust 337

Ballymena Borough Council

Ballymena Borough Council considered the above Bill at its Monthly Meeting held on Monday, 6th July, 2009, when it was agreed that any comments which Members may have would be directed to the Committee for Social Development through either the N.I. Housing Council or N.I.L.G.A.

Regards,

R. Craig,
Lead Committee Administrator.

Belfast City Council

I refer to the Committee for Social Development’s letter to our Chief Executive dated 26th June, 2009 seeking comments upon the Housing (Amendment) Bill. In the letter, the request has been made for the Council to submit comments by Friday, 17th July, 2009.

Belfast City Council, in common with the vast majority if not all District Councils in Northern Ireland, is in recess during the month of July and therefore it will be impossible for the Council to comment formally on the Bill before the established deadline. The Council is unable to respond to consultation which has such a restricted deadline and particularly within the traditional recess month for Local Government. I will submit the letter for consideration by the appropriate Council Committee in August and any comments will be forwarded after they have been ratified by the Council at its meeting on 1st September, 2009.

I should be obliged if these initial comments could be drawn to the attention of the Committee.

Regards.

Liam Steele
Head of Committee and Members’ Services
3rd Floor Adelaide Exchange
Adelaide Street
Belfast
BT2 8GD

Tel 02890 320202 ext 6325

Belfast City Council

Our Ref: SW/TG
Being dealt with by: John Corkey
Tel: 90270305
Date: 11th September 2009

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Northern Ireland Assembly
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Mr McCallion,

RE: Housing (Amendment) Bill

I refer to the above and would apologise for the delay in forwarding this submission. I would stress however that Belfast City Council’s committee and council meeting calendar would not have permitted a timely response to your original correspondence of 26th June 2009. I am therefore grateful that you have agreed to accept this late submission. I do however intend to seek retrospective council approval for these personal comments.

I would also point out that I wish only to address clause 14 of the Bill – Definition of “House in Multiple Occupation".

You will be aware that the regulatory responsibility for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) will transfer to district councils, as part of the Review of Public Administration, in May 2011. The definition of a HMO and the regulatory regime and enforcement responsibilities that flow from it are therefore of considerable significance to this council and to its Environmental Health Service in particular.

Part of the rationale behind regulating HMOs, as I am sure you are aware, is to minimise the risks which could be caused by a number of different people living independently in one building. Therefore, exempting two un-related families from living together, as suggested in the Bill, could allow potential health and safety risks and poor living conditions to develop and go uncontrolled. Also, the introduction of the wider definition of a “family" could potentially compromise the ability of the regulator to enforce the legislation as it would become increasingly difficult to prove or disprove extended family connections.

To address Lord Justice Girvan’s concerns, relating to the inadvertent creation of a HMO by a family taking in an elderly aunt or uncle, it would, in my view, have been more appropriate to allow one or two lodgers living with the main household to be exempt from registration.

Broadening the definition of family is likely to open up the possibility of overcrowding, for example, where two large family circles live together in the same house, but without the protection of the HMO standards. In the light of recent local evidence of large numbers of vulnerable people, often in extended families, living in allegedly dangerous and sub-standard accommodation, it would seem prudent to retain the existing definition in order to be able to manage this type of situation but, at the same time, to review the current HMO registration scheme. For example, in England and Wales guidance was drafted for local authorities to exempt from registration HMOs that had only one or two lodgers.

I trust these comments are of assistance to you however if you require any further information please contact John Corkey of this office at 028 90270305 or e-mail him at corkeyj@belfastcity.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Suzanne Wylie
Head of Service
Environmental Health

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust

Chartered Institute of Housing

Housing (Amendment) Bill –
Response from The Chartered Institute of Housing

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) welcomes the introduction of the Housing (Amendment) Bill, and the opportunity to provide comment on the bill. While the majority of the provisions in the bill are non-contentious and will make a positive contribution to the housing system in Northern Ireland there are a number of issues which the CIH would like to raise.

Section 1 - Homelessness Strategy

CIH welcomes the introduction of a statutory requirement for the production of a homelessness strategy in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome development; the reduction and eventual eradication of homelessness is a key policy priority for any government, and a strategy for the NIHE will play a key role in achieving these objectives. It is reflective of current practice in other jurisdictions in the UK, whereby the existence of a homelessness strategy has acted as a key driver for positive practice in reducing homelessness.

Since the duty to produce a strategy rests with the NIHE, there remains a risk that this document becomes the sole driver for government intervention on homelessness. Government departments have a key role to play, as do other agencies. The CIH would strongly recommend that the Committee considers ways to ensure that responsibilities of other arms of government in reducing homelessness are identified and met.

During Executive Committee Business[1] it was proposed to produce the Homelessness Strategy every three years, in line with the Comprehensive Spending Review period. The CIH would support an approach to strategy review that ensures coherence with the relevant budget cycle within the NIHE.

The acceptance in the Bill that homelessness is a problem which goes beyond the realm of housing is also an encouraging sign. A co-ordinated strategy involving health and social services will, hopefully, help alleviate the problem and assist the Housing Executive in the prevention of homelessness.

As providers and managers of social housing in Northern Ireland, Registered Housing Associations and providers of temporary and other forms of accommodation will have a key role to play in ensuring successful implementation of the strategy. The CIH would recommend strengthening their role in the production and implementation of the strategy. It may be practicable to consider their potential role as a statutory consultee to the strategy, to enable its development, to ensure early ‘buy-in’ to the strategy from key service providers, and ensure services are provided that will aid implementation of the strategy.

Section 2 - Duty of Executive to provide advice

The availability of free and independent advice is a critical component of any strategy or policy to reduce homelessness. On that basis, the CIH believes that a duty to provide advice on homelessness is helpful. The CIH would hope that this duty to interpreted in a broad sense to a general duty to provide advice on housing options, to ensure that it achieves its aim of preventing, and reducing, homelessness. The CIH notes that the ‘Code of Guidance on Homelessness’[2] in Scotland takes a ‘prevention better than cure’ approach in terms of advice aimed at avoiding homelessness. The benefits of adopting a similar approach to that taken by the code should be fully explored.

While a duty to provide advice on homelessness in the bill is welcome, the CIH believes that an opportunity has been missed in to introduce a Northern Ireland wide source of free and independent advice on all housing options to everyone, irrespective of their housing circumstances.

Everyone should have access to a clear, transparent source of advice and information about housing options to meet lifetime needs. At present advice is fragmented and is targeted to provide product information and emergency interventions. Government should look at the promotion and provision of a new approach to housing advice which can address diverse and holistic housing and financial needs and longer term aspirations of customers. This would need to be created and mainstreamed not just for social housing but for all individuals to help with planning for a wide range of housing careers[3].

Section 3 - Eligibility for housing assistance

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) has described how decisions and advice are increasingly being met by ‘a language barrier for some non-UK nationals in Northern Ireland and therefore recommend that the format and content of all correspondences takes account of the language needs of the applicant.’[4]

Whilst there is currently provision for non-UK nationals in terms of translation, a pro-active approach in publicising these services with is required.

Section 5 - Reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness

CIH welcomes the introduction of a statutory right to appeal for applicants which will further safeguard both the integrity of the application process and the entitlement of individuals to an open and accountable application and review process.

The option to appeal to County Court level, in theory, is welcome but will enable resources to ensure that individuals are aware of their entitlement, and that they receive advice on the court system. The provision will place further responsibility on the County Court system; resource will be required to ensure that the system is manageable and can cope with the introduction of these provisions.

Section 6 - Power to obtain information from registered housing associations

The provisions in the bill relating to housing associations are part of the wider framework of management and regulation of housing associations. While the CIH does not take issue with the provisions included in the bill, it would support a general examination of the current approach to housing association regulation, in the future. The CIH makes these comments in light of changes to the regulatory regime elsewhere in the UK; there may be lessons to be learned from emerging approaches in other jurisdictions.

Section 9 - Abandonment of introductory tenancies

This Section is to be welcomed, particularly in light of current procedure which states NIHE must hold any property for a given period of time. This Section which permits disposal of property is particularly useful in terms of avoiding cost, both in finance and time, whilst also avoiding any legal disputes over property with the tenant.

Section 10 - Anti-social behaviour: Executive’s policy and procedures

The reluctance of a victim of antisocial behaviour to identify themselves as a complainant allows much antisocial behaviour to remain unresolved. Whilst the publication of policies and procedure’s will help raise awareness it is suggested that forthcoming reviews should provide resources to help provide local communities to develop strategies to successfully tackle ASB. This will remove the onus from individuals and better reflects emerging approaches to community policing.

Prepared by Richard Tanswell and Peter Shanks, Chartered Institute of Housing. For further information contact the CIH on 02890 778222 or www.cih.org/northernireland

[1] Northern Ireland Assembly, 2009. The Assembly – Official Report Tuesday 23 June 2009 [Online]
Available at: http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2008/090623.htm#1
[Accessed 10th August 2009]

[2] Scottish Executive (2005) Code of Guidance on Homelessness: Guidance on legislation, policies and practices to prevent and resolve homelessness.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/05/31133334/33366

[3] For further detail on this proposal, see the CIH ‘Rethinking Housing’ document on http://www.cih.org/policy/RethinkingHousingExecutiveSummary.pdf

[4] Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, 2009. NIHRC – Response to Housing (Amendment) Bill (June 2009) [Online]
Available at: http://nihrc.org/dms/data/NIHRC/attachments/dd/files/106/Response_to_Housing_(Amendment)_Bill_(June_2009).pdf
[Accessed 10th August 2009]

Citizens Advice

14th August 2009
Mr Peter McCallion
Clerk to the Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Peter

Response to the Housing (Amendment) Bill, Clause 14: Amendment to definition of House in Multiple Occupation

This letter represents a brief response to the proposal to amend the HMO definition under the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Citizens Advice welcomes the opportunity during the brief extension period to comment and wishes to be kept informed of the progress of the consultation process.

The definition of a House in Multiple Occupation is complex even for a specialist housing law adviser. The Amendment proposes to widen the broad definition within the Housing (Amendment) Bill so that a HMO must consist of at least 3 qualifying persons who are not in the same family.

Currently these are defined in the Housing (NI) Order 2003 as “a house occupied by more than 2 qualifying persons, being persons who are not all members of the same family"

The definition of a person’s ‘family’ is her/his grandparent, parent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, spouses, civil partners or other partners (of either sex). Family also includes stepchildren and half-blood relationships. The amendment also proposes to include the following to count as family members: uncle, aunt, nephew and niece.

Citizens Advice would like to express concern around these proposals that have been included without a prior public consultation and we would like to request that the Committee remove this clause from the Housing (Amendment) Bill and carry out a full detailed consultation.

The provisions of the Housing (NI) Order 1992 empower the Housing Executive to set and enforce standards requiring repairs and maintenance work to be carried out and also to ensure the installation of fire safety features in HMOs.

This is necessary to protect the health and safety of all residents within each HMO. The proposal to widen the definition will result in fewer tenants who live with extended families being entitled to this protection.

We also understand from the explanatory and financial memorandum issued with the bill that: ‘In connection with a judicial review in 2005, a judge criticised the current definition of a house in multiple occupation (“HMO") in Northern Ireland on the basis that the definition of “family" in Article 3 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 fails to recognise that members of an extended family living under the same roof comprise a single household. The judge suggested that the definition of HMO used in English legislation would be more appropriate. However, the English definition was designed for legislation which is more complex than Northern Ireland’s and it is therefore proposed to adapt the Scottish definition for Northern Ireland.’

We would interpret this to mean that extended families would no longer enjoy the protection that unrelated residents within HMO’s receive, so it is also a concern for residents and landlords alike that lack of legislative protection could lead to overcrowding, and, without regulation, this could have health and safety implications on tenants.

We would strongly urge the Committee to consider our views.

If there are any issues arising from the comments made, or the need for any further clarification on any points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Lucy Cochrane
Information and Policy Officer

Committee for Finance and Personnel

Committee for Finance and Personnel
Room 419
Parliament Buildings
Tel: 028 9052 1843

From: Shane McAteer
Clerk to the Committee for Finance and Personnel
Date: 2 July 2009
To: Peter McCallion
Clerk to the Committee for Social Development

Housing (Amendment) Bill

At its meeting on 1 July 2009, the Committee for Finance and Personnel agreed to forward your correspondence of 29 June 2009 to the Minister of Finance and Personnel. The Committee for Finance and Personnel also agreed that it will not make a written submission on the Housing (Amendment) Bill, but will consider any submission made by the Department of Finance and Personnel. As such, the Department has been asked to copy the Committee into any submission which it makes.

SHANE MCATEER

Tel 21843

Committee for Regional Development

Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland

Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development

Department of Education

Department for Employment and Learning

Department of the Environment

Department of Finance and Personnel

Department of Health,
Social Services and Public Safety

Department for Regional Development

Disability Action

16 July 2009

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Mr. McCallion,

Re: Housing (Amendment) Bill

Disability Action is a pioneering Northern Ireland charity working with and for people with disabilities. We work with our members to provide information, training, transport awareness programmes and representation for people regardless of their disability; whether that is a physical, mental, sensory, hidden or learning disability.

21% (369,390) of adults and 6% (105,540) of children in Northern Ireland has a disability and the incidence is higher here than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Over one quarter of all families here are affected.

Disability Action wishes to make the following comments:

Clause 1: Homelessness Strategy – Supported

• Suggest OFMDFM be added to the list as they have central responsibility for Equality and Human Rights.
• 6(B) 8 should read “voluntary organisations or other persons, particularly homeless persons or those with direct personal experience of homelessness…"

Clause 2: Duty to Provide Advice – Supported

• Suggest 6(D) 1 should read “…is, available, in accessible formats…."

Clauses 3 – 19: Supported

Equality Impact Assessment: As a significant part of the Bill concerns homelessness and as increasing numbers of homeless people are presenting with mental ill health, Disability Action believes that an EQIA should have been undertaken.

Disability Action has welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s work on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Yours sincerely

Monica Wilson
Chief Executive

Dungannon and South Tyrone
Borough Council

Equality Commission
for Northern Ireland

Mr Peter McCallion
Clerk of the Committee for Social Development
Room 142
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

19 August 2009

Dear Mr McCallion,

Re: Housing (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2009

Thank you for inviting the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (the “Commission") to submit evidence for consideration at the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2009 (the “Bill").

The Commission generally welcomes many of the changes proposed within the Bill. As your letter requests, our response is structured with reference to only the specific groups of clauses within the Bill to which we recommend additions or amendments. Although we do not make suggestions on alternative or additional wordings to the clauses, it is hoped that our comments will facilitate the Committee’s consideration of the Bill.

Introduction

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is an independent public body established under the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Commission is responsible for implementing the legislation on fair employment and treatment, sex discrimination and equal pay, race relations, age, sexual orientation and disability. The Commission’s remit also includes overseeing the statutory duties on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity and good relations under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the disability duties under the Disability Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

The Commission’s general duties include:

• working towards the elimination of discrimination;
• promoting equality of opportunity and encouraging good practice;
• promoting positive/affirmative action;
• promoting good relations between people of different racial groups;
• overseeing the implementation and effectiveness of the statutory duty on relevant public authorities; and
• keeping the legislation under review.

Statement on Key Inequalities – Housing & Communities[1]

In 2007, the Commission published a Statement on Key Inequalities in Northern Ireland. This sets out our view that housing is a basic human need and provides a foundation for family and community life. Good quality, affordable housing in safe, sustainable communities is essential to ensuring health, wellbeing and a prosperous society.

This publication pointed out that pockets of deprivation exist in Northern Ireland in which households experience severe housing need, homelessness and poor housing. At a time of recession, marginalised groups are further exposed. Action is required to reduce the inequalities caused as a result of an increase in homelessness[2], a rising number of households on the waiting list and in housing stress[3], and a lack of affordable housing[4]. The consequences of these are higher levels of social exclusion, fewer housing options and less choice. Public policymakers must recognise the impact of housing on equality, and identify opportunities to reduce exclusion, increase meaningful housing choice and focus energies on achieving positive change.

The Statement on Key Inequalities states that it is worrying that the number of people becoming homeless every year continues to increase; in 2005/06 it increased by 16% on the previous year and amounted to 20,121 households[5]. There has also been an upward trend in the number of older people presenting as homeless - in 2001, 6% of older person households presented as homeless to NIHE, compared to 4% in 1991[6].

In 2006, just under half of those presenting as homeless were deemed to be priority need, and therefore entitled to accommodation. That leaves more than ten thousand households without accommodation[7]. This group is disproportionately made up of single households, usually men, who are at risk of entering a cycle of homelessness and deprivation in the long term, with all the social consequences this brings.

The Commission recognises the previous work on homelessness taken forward by the Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive. Notably, the formation of the Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Working Group by the Department for Social Development which led a cross-departmental and cross-sectoral review of the problems encountered by people who are homeless, with the publication of the strategy document “Including the Homeless" in July 2007. Furthermore, we commend the Housing Executive for its publication of Homelessness Strategy Reports in 2002 and 2005.

Clause 1: Homelessness Strategy

Recommendations:

1. The Commission recommends that:

• all local councils (both existing and proposed); and
• all Government Departments

be included within the list of bodies which shall take account of the homelessness strategy, within the proposed Article 6A(5).

2. The Commission recommends that provisions be placed within the Bill that will amend legislation to require authorities to provide culturally sensitive accommodation for Traveller households who are statutorily homeless.

3. The Commission recommends that the Bill includes provisions which place a requirement on the Housing Executive to specifically address homelessness within the Traveller community. In adopting this recommendation, the Commission further recommends cognisance to the provisions within Article 35 of Race Relations Order 1997 (as amended) and Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Evidence in Support of Recommendation 1:

The Commission welcomes the legislative obligation in this Bill for the Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy every five years, and the requirement for the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being and the Regional Health and Social Care Board to assist with the formulation of the strategy. Furthermore, we welcome the requirement for other bodies to take into account the strategy in the exercise of their functions.

We propose that Councils should be included explicitly in proposed Article 6A(5) as, under changes being proposed and implemented through the Review of Public Administration, local councils will be required to lead in a community planning process. Statutory agencies, including the Housing Executive, will be required to work with councils in developing and delivering published community plans and addressing homelessness may well be part of this process.

We propose that Government Departments should be included also as they should also take account of the homelessness strategy in the exercise of their functions. In particular, the strategy may have relevance in the context of individual and cross-departmental strategies, policies and programmes which are aimed at the promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations (such as the Gender Equality Strategy, the Race Equality Strategy, and the Children and Young Persons Strategy), and those aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion (such as Lifetime Opportunities).

Evidence in Support of Recommendations 2 & 3:

The inadequate provision of culturally sensitive permanent sites for Travellers often leads to Travellers occupying temporary sites on a permanent basis. The long-term use of facilities intended for temporary use has resulted in living conditions that are at best minimal, at worst below that which should be provided for human beings at the beginning of the twenty first century. Furthermore, the lack of supply of transit and services sites has resulted in some Travellers feeling forced to accept ‘bricks and mortar’ accommodation, and the perception that their right to a nomadic way of life was not understood or supported by authorities.

The Commission recently published a report on “Outlining Minimum Standards for Traveller Accommodation"[8]. The report highlighted that considerable delays and obstacles have been encountered in the development of new sites. Identification, acquisition and allocation of land for site development remains a key factor in contributing to delays. Consultation with councils regarding planning applications in respect of sites for Traveller accommodation has significantly added to the length of time taken to bring forward new sites.

The Commission’s research recommended that homelessness legislation should be amended to require authorities to provide culturally sensitive accommodation for Traveller households who are statutorily homeless.

Clause 10: Anti-social Behaviour: Housing Executive’s Policies and Procedures

Recommendations:

4. The Commission recommends that provisions are made within the Bill for the Department to draft, consult upon and publish a statutory code of practice with respect to anti-social behaviour for all social landlords to ensure a consistent approach.

5. The Commission also recommends that specific provisions are placed within the Bill that place a statutory requirement on the Housing Executive to fully consult when developing, amending and publishing their policy and procedures on anti-social behaviour. In addition, the Commission considers that the Housing Executive, when developing and publishing its policy and procedures with respect to anti-social behaviour, should screen in line with its Equality Scheme commitment to screen all new and proposed policies, under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Evidence in Support of Recommendations 4 & 5:

The Commission welcomes the statutory requirement for the Housing Executive to publish both its policy in relation to anti-social behaviour and its procedures for dealing with occurrences of anti-social behaviour which take place in its own properties or affect tenants. Furthermore, we welcome the requirement placed upon the Housing Executive to keep its policies under review and have regard to any guidance issued by the Department for Social Development. In 2008, the Commission published principles for equality and good relations in local government reform[9]. We recommend that these same principles be adopted by the Housing Executive when implementing change and reform to their public services.

In April 2004, the Commission made a response to Measures to Tackle Anti-Social Behaviour in Northern Ireland consultation[10]. With respect to housing issues, the Commission highlighted its concern that ASBOs may result in some families losing their homes. When one family member has engaged in anti-social behaviour there may be negative consequences on other family members because a tenancy in not secured or is withdrawn and this requires attention.

In the consultation response, the Commission called for a statutory code of practice in this area for all social landlords to ensure a consistent approach.

I trust the Committee finds the Commission’s recommendations and comments useful.

Yours sincerely

Evelyn Collins CBE
Chief Executive

Direct Line: 028 90 500 622 (PA)
Fax 028 90 329 227
Email: ecollins@equalityni.org

[1] Statement on Key Inequalities. Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. October 2007.

[2] DSDNI (2007) Homelessness Strategy. This showed that between 1999 and 2003, the number of households who made homelessness applications to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive increased by 49% and the number accepted as homeless increased by 65%. During 2005 - 2006, a total of 20,121 households presented as homeless. This represents a 15.9% increase on the previous year.

[3] DSDNI (2007) Northern Ireland Housing Statistics. In March 2002, 25,983 people were on the Common Waiting List for social housing; of these 12,286 were in Housing Stress. By March 2006, these numbers had risen to 32,215 and 17,433 respectively.

[4] The recent Semple Review of Affordable Housing recommended that a target for social housing completions should be set at 2,000 per annum (expressed as 10,000) over the next five years

[5] DSDNI (2007) Northern Ireland Housing Statistics.

[6] The Simon Community (2002) The Face of Older Homelessness.

[7] DSDNI (2007) Northern Ireland Housing Statistics

[8] Outlining Minimum Standards for Traveller Accommodation: Research Undertaken by the Chartered Institute of Housing and the University of Ulster. Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. March 2009

[9] Principles for Equality of Opportunity and Good Relations in Local Government Reform: Public Policy Statement 1. February 2008. Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

[10] Measures to Tackle Anti-Social Behaviour in Northern Ireland – Consultation Response to the Northern Ireland Office. Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. April 2004.

Equality Commission
Supplementary Evidence

Equality Commission
Supplementary Evidence

First Housing Aid & Support Services

First Housing Aid & Support Services
Response to the Housing (Amendment) Bill

First Housing Aid & Support Services is a charitable organisation and a leading provider of homelessness related services in Northern Ireland. We manage a wide range of projects including a housing rights service, floating and resettlement support and specialist temporary accommodation for people who are homeless and in acute housing need across Northern Ireland. We also operate the SmartMove Scheme. Working with 674 private sector landlords we have created over 2,000 good quality private sector tenancies in Derry and Belfast since 2000. The service also includes tenancy support and a mediation service.

First Housing welcomes the introduction of the Housing (Amendment) Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We regard the changes introduced as broadly positive.

We would make the following comments

Clause 1 – Homelessness Strategy

A change in the word ‘may’ to ‘will’ or ‘shall’ would remove the ambiguity that exists in relation to the statutory requirement for the Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy.

The creation of a statutory duty for the Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy every five years is to be welcomed.

However, recent economic events suggest that many strategies, however well intentioned, can quickly be overtaken by events and rendered virtually redundant.

While the power to modify the existing strategy might help in certain circumstances, the power to completely revise and publish a new strategy within an existing five year period would seem sensible and could provide additional reassurance for the general public.

Clause 2 – Duty of the Executive to provide advice

Again, the duty is to be welcomed. However, there is no provision for the inclusion of any guidance within the Bill. The inclusion of a requirement to produce a ‘code of guidance’ could ensure that specific practical advice is provided covering a range of issues.

Similarly, the requirement to produce a set of national standards for the provision of Housing Advice would ensure that the advice provided met certain minimum quality standards. In this respect, I would suggest that the Committee for Social Development be referred to the guidance used by the Legal Services Commission in England and the set of National Standards in Scotland.

Without going into too much detail, a requirement that a copy of any advice given be put in writing would be a simple example of the type of quality assurance standard which could be introduced.

Clause 3 – Eligibility for Housing Assistance.

The changes are to be welcomed.

Clause 4 – Power of the Department to Prescribe Form of Advice and Assistance.

The power is to be welcomed. However, again, there is no provision for the inclusion of any guidance within the Bill.

Clause 5 – Reviews of decisions in relation to homelessness

The changes are to be welcomed.

Clause 6 – Right to request review of decision

At present a person who is dissatisfied with a decision can request an appeal of the decision at an Area Office level, and if still dissatisfied seek a further appeal at a central level. The removal of the current second stage appeal/review procedure could make the review of decisions and the process itself too stringent. A second review procedure would be welcomed.

Clause 7 – Procedure on a review

In the absence of any second stage review procedure the ability of a person to appeal a review decision will be largely dependent on the person’s entitlement to legal aid. A second stage review procedure to enable initial decisions to be reconsidered would be remove this barrier.

Clauses 8 – 9

The changes are to be welcomed.

Clause 10 – Housing Executive’s Policies and Procedures Relating to Anti-Social Behaviour

The changes are to be welcomed but should be extended to cover all social landlords rather than just the Housing Executive.

A copy of any statement, revised or otherwise should be provided free of charge to any person requesting such information. We would suggest changing ‘payment of a reasonable fee’ to ‘free of charge’.

Clauses 11 - 16

The changes are to be welcomed.

Kevin Wright
Chief Executive

12th August 2009

Fold Housing Association

Further to your correspondence regarding the Housing (Amendment ) Bill I would confirm that after reviewing the contents I have no written evidence to submit for consideration at the Committee Stage.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider submitting evidence.

Eileen Patterson
Director of Housing Services
Tel No 02890 397123

Health and Social Care Board

Date 14th July 2009

Dear Mr McCallion

Re: Housing (Amendment) Bill

I write in response to your letter, dated 26th June 2009, in which you sought written evidence for consideration at the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Clause 1 of the Bill:

• places a duty on the Housing Executive to formulate a homelessness strategy;
• obliges the Health and Social Care Board (HSCB)to assist the Housing Executive in this task; and
• states that the homelessness strategy may include specific objectives to be pursued by the HSCB and HSC Trusts.

The HSCB welcomes this legislation. The four legacy Health and Social Services Boards had close working relationships with the Housing Executive on arrange of common concerns, including the needs of homeless people. For example, the former Eastern Board and the Housing Executive jointly funded the multi-disciplinary Homeless Support Team (managed by Extern, a voluntary organisation) based in Belfast. The HSCB has ensured that this funding has continued.

As the HSCB has a Northern Ireland wide remit, this should facilitate even closer working relationships with the Housing Executive than was possible when there were four Health and Social Services Boards.

I hope this is of assistance to the Committee when they are considering the Bill.

Yours sincerely

John Compton
Chief Executive

Helm Housing

Helm Housing
Housing (Amendment) Bill
Submission

Clause 1 – 5 Homelessness Strategy. No comment for improvement. Helm Housing supports the introduction of a homelessness strategy.

Clause 6 – 8 Registered Housing Associations. Under 21 (1) a & b insert clarification / definition on type information that can be sought from individuals concerning housing associations.

Clause 9 Introductory Tenancies. No Comment. Helm Housing welcomes measures to strengthen abandonment of introductory tenancies.

Clause 10 – 11 Anti-social behaviour. No Comment. Helm Housing welcomes additional measures on anti-social behaviour.

Clause 12 – 19. No comments.

Ian Graham
Director Of Development
Helm Housing

Housing Rights Service

Housing Amendment Bill –
Clause 2 & Clause 4

Clause 4 Power of Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

Clause 4 amends Article 10 of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 to give the DSD the power to prescribe the type of advice and assistance available to people found to be homeless or at imminent threat of homelessness. In other words, this applies to the Housing Executive’s duty towards homeless people (which they have had for over 20 years).

This amendment does not reflect what was agreed at the Cross Departmental/Cross Sectoral Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Group on Homelessness.

At PSI it was recognised that the Housing Executive only had a duty to provide advice to certain people after they have presented at been assessed under the homelessness legislation. The rationale for PSI was to increase the emphasis on preventing homelessness. Consequently the group agrees to give the Housing Executive a general duty to provide advice to anyone free of charge about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness i.e. before homelessness occurs e.g. someone’s pay is reduced and they are worried about getting into mortgage arrears. This ‘general duty’ is being introduced by Clause 2 of the Housing Amendment Bill.

The PSI group also agreed that the DSD should provide guidance to the Housing Executive on the type and form that this advice should take. This was considered necessary, as the new general duty goes well beyond the scope of advice that the Housing Executive has been traditionally involved with to date.

This recommendation is included in the DSD’s plan “Including the Homeless" it says:

“The DSD proposes that the legislation should be amended to require the Housing Executive to ensure that advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available free of charge and that where the Executive is required to provide advice and assistance, the Department should have the power to prescribe the kind of advice and assistance to be provided"

However, this has not been included in the Bill. Instead the DSD has decided to prescribe the form of advice which NIHE gives to people who are already homeless.

Amendment required to Clause 2 Duty of the Executive to provide advice

After this clause an additional paragraph (4) is needed which should say, for example:

“Duty of the Executive to provide advice

6D (1)…..

(2)….

(3)…

(4) The DSD may issue guidance, to the Housing Executive, as to the form and content of such advice and information."

Position in Scotland, England & Wales

Clause 2 of our Housing Amendment Bill mirrors the position in other jurisdictions which have been in place which were introduced under the Housing Act 1996 (England & Wales) & Housing Scotland Act 2001. In both pieces of legislation the power to prescribe they form and type of advice was also included.

Homelessness Act 2001 wording

2 Advice on homelessness etc.

(1) Every local authority must secure that advice and information about—

(a) homelessness and the prevention of homelessness, and

(b) any services which may assist a homeless person or assist in the prevention of homelessness, is available free of charge to any person in the authority’s area.

(2) The Scottish Ministers may issue guidance, either to local authorities generally or to a particular authority, as to the form and content of such advice and information.

Housing Act 1996

179 Duty of local housing authority to provide advisory services

(1) Every local housing authority shall secure that advice and information about homelessness, and the prevention of homelessness, is available free of charge to any person in their district.

(2) The authority may give to any person by whom such advice and information is provided on behalf of the authority assistance by way of grant or loan.

(3) A local housing authority may also assist any such person—

(a) by permitting him to use premises belonging to the authority,

(b) by making available furniture or other goods, whether by way of gift, loan or otherwise, and

(c) by making available the services of staff employed by the authority.

182 Guidance by the Secretary of State

(1) In the exercise of their functions relating to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness, a local housing authority or social services authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State may give guidance either generally or to specified descriptions of authorities."

What the guidance contains

Government guidance is provided in Scotland, England & Wales sates that the advice provided should cover:

• Tenants’ rights and rights of occupation
• Leaseholders rights and service charges
• Harassment & illegal eviction
• Possession proceedings
• Rights to benefits
• ent levels
• Rent & mortgage arrears
• Managing debt
• Grants for repairs & adaptations
• Obtaining private rented accommodation
• Applying for social housing

Currently NIHE advice would not be as comprehensive as this.

See Chapter 2 of DCLG’s guidance in England which explains what this should look like -http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/152056.pdf

Housing Rights Service
Supplementary Evidence

Middleton Buildings
10-12 High Street
BELFAST
BT1 2BA

www.housingrights.org.uk

Supplementary
Evidence to the Social Development Committee on:
The Housing (Amendment) Bill
September 2009

Clause 4 Power of Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

This clause amends Article 10 of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 to give the DSD the power to prescribe the type of advice and assistance to people found to be homeless or at imminent threat of homelessness. In other words, this only applies to the Housing Executive’s current duty towards homeless people (which they have had for over 20 years).

This amendment does not reflect the deliberations of the Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Group on Homelessness. The rationale for PSI was to increase the emphasis on preventing homelessness. As a consequence, it was agreed to place a general duty on the Housing Executive to provide advice to anyone about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness (i.e. Clause 2 of the Housing Amendment Bill). The group also agreed that the DSD should provide guidance to the Housing Executive on the type and form that this advice should take. This was considered necessary, as the new general duty goes well beyond the scope of advice that the Housing Executive has been traditionally involved with to date. As currently positioned, this clause will not enable the DSD to do this.

Housing Rights Service recommends the relocation of this clause to immediately follow Clause 2 “Duty of Executive to provide advice".

For further information please contact:

Nicola McCrudden - Policy Manager
Housing Rights Service
Middleton Buildings
0-12 High Street
Belfast, BT1 2BA
(e) nicola@housingrights.org.uk
(d) 028 90267919
(t) 028 90245640

Landlords Association of Northern Ireland

Lisburn City Council

For the attention of Peter McCallion (Committee Clerk)

Lisburn City Council thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the above

Housing (Amendment) Bill and welcomes the proposals as stated.

Hope this is of assistance

Regards
Stella

On Behalf of Ian Wilson, Assistant Director of Environmental Services
(Building Control)

Please acknowledge receipt of this e.mail.

Northern Ireland Association for the
Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Chair of DSD
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

25th August 2009

Dear Mr Hamilton

I enclose NIACRO’s response to the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill 2009.

Yours sincerely

Pat Conway
Director of Services
NIACRO

Introduction

NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for almost 40 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. NIACRO provides services under the headings of; working with children and young people who offend; providing services to families and children of offenders; supporting offenders and ex-prisoners in the community and working with prisoners.

We receive funding from, and work in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland.

NIACRO Services

NIACRO is experienced in dealing with issues concerning accommodation for offenders and ex-prisoners. As part of our commitment to resettlement, we work closely with NI Housing Executive (NIHE) and the Housing Rights Service to help tenants retain their homes during imprisonment. We assist prisoners in addressing issues of homelessness, prior to their release, through an Advice Service in each of the three prisons in Northern Ireland. Each year, this service deals with over 900 prisoners.

Through our Family Links Service, NIACRO also offers support to the families of people in prison. Our APAC (Assisting People and Communities) project provides an individual needs-led approach to integration and in particular, work with the Housing Executive to assist people who risk losing their tenancy as a result of anti-social or offending behaviour. The programme dealt with almost 50 cases in the past year and has been extended to include a dedicated worker for women offenders and another, who works to meet the needs of individuals with mental health issues.

Our Base 2 project is funded by the Housing Executive to support individuals at risk from exclusion from their communities. The team also provide risk assessment information to NIHE on the levels of threat experienced by the client. This assessment can assist the Homeless Support Unit to provide safe relocation into temporary hostel accommodation, with the aim of offering permanent tenancy.

Intimidation, ranging from neighbour intimidation to that arising from civil disturbances accounts, on average, for around 15% of presentations.[1] We work to make sure those affected remain in their homes and communities, with careful support and address problems that undermine their ability to remain in their communities. Part of this work includes the Base 2 Project, which in 2008/2009, dealt with 925 housing related cases.

The NIACRO advice service also deals with many concerns regarding housing and the threat of homelessness. In the 2008-2009 year, housing queries made up 16% of all queries to our service.

NIHE Homeless Strategy

NIACRO sut homelessness, with the NIHE remaining the lead agency.

One third of prisoners lose their accommodation whilst in prison.[2] Although NIHE offers support in terms of housing upon their release, this takes time and the individual continues to face the barriers of employment and access to services, while awaiting stable housing accommodation.

Individuals leaving prison, who make contact with support services within 72 hours of release, have a greater chance of successful reintegration, than those who do not.[3]

The Strategy should clearly outline an NIHE commitment to work alongside other agencies to put in place connecting services to ensure the ex-offender has access to housing, finances, health services, education and employment. This will reduce re-offending rates.

We agree with the identified departments being given responsibility for taking the strategy into account when undertaking their functions. However, NIACRO also believes each department should publish how they intend to do so in their strategic planning and account for outcomes through their reporting mechanisms.

Young People

There are categories of homeless people who don’t present to the Housing Executive, either because they do not feel their prospects of obtaining accommodation are strong, or because their lifestyle is unstable and processing an application has been difficult.

One such group is that of young people, particularly 16 and 17 year olds who are not catered for under child care legislation and who are homeless.

Few young homeless people are considered eligible for accommodation support under the Children’s Order (NI) 1995. A significant number of homeless 16 and 17 year olds are not eligible for housing benefits and are faced with limited options. Many present themselves to self-referral hostels or move from house to house, resulting in situations unsuitable for their needs and which may perpetuate existing difficulties.

As they have responsibility for young people in care up to the age of 21, NIACRO believes there needs to be a clearer acceptance by Health and Social Care Trusts to take ownership of housing issues for 16-17 year olds. Anecdotally, Base 2 staff report experiencing difficulties with young people under threat who have had to leave their homes. There is no clear demarcation over which department resolves the issue through housing or social services. Hence, there is often confusion over whether it is a housing issue and the whole family must relocate, or a child at risk issue, thereby making the situation the responsibility of Social Services. With often no options for accommodation presented to them, whole families have had to move in response to the threat on the young person.

There also needs to be clarification over levels of responsibility once a young person enters the criminal justice system. For instance, Social Services should make sure a young person in either juvenile detention or as a young adult in Hydebank Wood will still have their accommodation needs met upon release.

We know 20% of Base 2 referrals are women, but at least two-thirds are the head of households where loss of tenancy and homelessness is due to the actions of the children.

Women

The number of women in the criminal justice system may be relatively small, but the range of their accommodation needs are diverse – from shared accommodation offering a high level of support to independent accommodation which can facilitate children.

The current range of hostel accommodation is generally unsuitable for women, particularly those who are vulnerable and at risk of exploitation. NIACRO proposes a shared house facility where separate living units can be identified and where there is also an optional shared living area, similar to some of the university accommodation currently available for students.

The shared living area would have staff available at particular times, co-ordinating a programme of services, such as benefits advice and social/creative activities.

In addition, a number of 2/3-bedroomed flats should be retained by the criminal justice system for women who have children and who are waiting to be offered emergency housing.

There is also a need for a lodgings scheme to be developed to meet the needs of younger women. Lone, homeless females are a vulnerable group, who may not cope with sharing accommodation with families who have suffered trauma. In order to reduce the likelihood of their offending (or re-offending) targeted, stable housing accommodation is necessary.

This range of accommodation could be managed jointly by Probation Board NI and NIHE. It also needs to connect closely to specialist floating support provision provided by the voluntary sector.

Mental Health

Accommodation needs to be addressed within the Strategy for dealing with Personality Disorder, where small units offering high levels of support will be available for those who cannot manage in the community.

Private Rented Sector

The strategy should also consider the role of the private rented sector in ensuring sufficient accommodation is and will be available in NI to those who are or may become homeless (Clause 6, (1)(b))

This introduces the issue of affordability, which is critical. A significant number of ex-offenders are not entitled to social housing. Anecdotally, clients tell us the difference between Housing Benefit funds and rent costs are proving difficult to sustain on a low income. The payment of a full month’s rent as a deposit is prohibitive and can cause delays in securing suitable accommodation. Suitable accommodation for ex-offenders is fundamental for any progress to be made to reduce re-offending and encourage them to become active citizens in the community.

NIACRO favours the extension of the ‘Smartmove’ rent guarantee scheme – or a revised model - across Northern Ireland to improve access to private sector accommodation.

Duty of Executive to provide advice

NIACRO welcomes this addition to the role of the Executive and proposes any advice follows the Plain English guide to make sure all language and format is easily understood by those with literacy difficulties.

We support current policy whereby housing associations use Language Line and make sure most of their leaflets are printed in the eight main languages prevalent in N. Ireland. NIACRO believes this practice must continue as further information and advice is disseminated.

In addressing repeat homelessness, we call for all policies and procedures to be developed in partnership with other agencies, such as the Health and Social Care Trusts, so individuals get the help they need, rather than experiencing the full effects of homelessness over and over again.

As guidance for a higher level of inter-agency work, NIACRO believes the Bill should also clearly state the minimum level of advice and information a person presenting as homeless can expect to receive.

A right of review for homelessness decisions

NIACRO welcomes the inclusion of the right of review. However, we believe the suggested period of 21 days may be confusing and difficult for some individuals to cope with. The appointments with some advice agencies take up to four weeks to organise. NIACRO proposes that, in line with the social security calendar month, an applicant should have 28 days to request a review.

When an individual enters custody, they are often stressed and not considering their tenancy status. As a result, they are vulnerable to losing their tenancy, having been unlikely to alert their landlord of the changing circumstances. In such cases, NIACRO would like a strengthening of the tenant’s right of appeal against termination of tenancy under the Bill. We call for an official protocol between NIHE and NI Prison Service, whereby the Housing Executive can check the status of a tenant with the Prison Service and ascertain if they are likely to return to their accommodation. This has the added advantage of flagging the individual as a future tenant, upon release.

Introductory tenancies

People released from prison face barriers in accessing finance, including lack of employment opportunities and delays in receiving benefits (often due to an unstable living situation.)

This group is more likely to find themselves in arrears and are at a higher risk of reoffending to deal with financial difficulties. 60% of ex-offenders are refused jobs because of their criminal record.[4]

Further, many prisoners also have mental health issues and these individuals with personality disorders are more likely to find it difficult to sustain relationships with neighbours. This can potentially lead to issues with perceived anti-social behaviour and while NIACRO’s APAC programme was established to assist communities in dealing with these issues, we are a small operation and can only respond to 60-80 referrals per annum.

Introductory tenancies alone will not deal with the cause behind anti-social behaviour and neighbour nuisance disputes. Operating landlords simply have to remove the tenant, thereby displacing the problem. The underlying behaviour is not addressed and may even be reinforced when the evicted tenant inevitably seeks accommodation from another provider, including the private rented sector. The perpetrator may even stay in the same community, posing the same level of threat.

We remain concerned evictions can occur in an introductory tenancy by obtaining a court order, without needing to establish grounds for conviction. The 14-day period for a tenant to request a review of the landlord’s decision is insufficient, especially if assistance is required. NIACRO proposes that, in line with the social security calendar month, an applicant should have 28 days to request a review.

Intentionality

While not addressed in the Bill, NIACRO remains concerned about the interpretation of intentionality. Under the Housing NI Order 1988, (as amended) the four tests of homeless applicants are –

1. Homelessness

2. Eligibility for assistance

3. Priority need

4. Intentionality

There is a widely held view that released prisoners are deemed to be intentionally homeless by virtue of the fact that had they not committed an offence and been imprisoned, they would not have lost their accommodation. Clearly, this does little to reduce the potential of re-offending, once the individuals are back in the community.

Furthermore, we have anecdotal evidence of individuals returning to Northern Ireland after periods of enforced exile, who also find that they are regarded by the Housing Executive as intentionally homeless because they have voluntarily left accommodation provided in England. A homelessness strategy for Northern Ireland must take account of the reality faced by some of its citizens attempting to resettle here.

We propose the Executive adopt a similar model developed under Scotland’s Housing Act 2003, whereby the authorities are determining ‘intentionality’ will also be obliged to secure a short term tenancy, with the aim of converting this to a long-term tenancy within 12 months.

Conclusion

NIACRO believes that it is important that the DSD Committee review the issue of homelessness in Northern Ireland and that the community and voluntary sector have an important role in helping the Executive address this problem. We look forward to participating in the formulation of a Homeless Strategy for the future.

[1] Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Homelessness Strategy and Services Review Strategy, NIHE: Belfast 2005

[2] Home Office Social Exclusion Unit, Breaking the Circle, Home Office: London 2002

[3] Home Office, 2002

[4] Home Office, 2002

Northern Ireland Association for the
Care and Resettlement of Offenders Supplementary Evidence

Northern Ireland Association for the
Care and Resettlement of Offenders Supplementary Evidence

A Protocol for the Management of the
Accommodation and Related Support
Needs of People in Custody in Northern Ireland

1st May 2009

Contents

1. List of Abbreviations and Terms

Introduction

1.1 Context

2. Aims and Objectives of the Protocol

3. Legislative Framework

4. Strategic and Operational Framework

5. Remit of the Partner Agencies

NI Housing Executive (NIHE)

NI Prison Service (NIPS)

Probation Board NI (PBNI)

Council for the Homeless NI (CHNI)

Housing Rights Service (HRS)

NI Association for the Care & Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA)

6. Stage 1 - On Reception in Prison (On Remand / Pre-Sentence)

7. Stage 2 - On Reception in Prison (Post Sentence)

8. Stage 3 - During Custody

9. Stage 4 - Discharge

10. Communication & Information Sharing

11. Monitoring

12. Review

13. Complaints

14. Signatories

Appendices

(1) Location of key and supporting documents

(2) List of pro formas

(3) Flowcharts

(4) Prisoner Consent Form (Form 1.1)

(5A) Information sharing definitions

(5B) Legal Principles for information sharing

(6) Hostel Referral Form (Form 1.9) PAGE NUMBER

List of Abbreviations and Terms

1.0 Introduction

This Protocol has been agreed by:

NI Housing Executive (NIHE)
NI Prison Service (NIPS)
Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI)
Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland (CHNI)
Housing Rights Service (HRS)
NI Association for the Care & Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)
Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA)

It should be noted from the outset, that whilst CHNI and NIFHA have been involved in developing the Protocol, they have no direct role in the implementation of the Protocol. However, as key umbrella organisations within the housing sector, they acknowledge their role in supporting, promoting and disseminating the Protocol information to their relevant members.

The Protocol seeks to provide a framework for co-operation which will enable the accommodation and associated support needs of those entering (including those on remand) and leaving custody to be met. Sex offenders and other specific offence categories[1] are not included within the Protocol as their specific accommodation and associated support needs will be dealt with through the new Public Protection Arrangements for Northern Ireland (PPANI) - formerly MASRAM.

1.1 Context

The resettlement agenda has been given new prominence in the field of criminal justice as there is growing recognition of the need, in the interest of public protection, to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. There have been a number of key policy documents produced which have sought to promote the broad resettlement agenda in Northern Ireland. These have emphasised the need for an inter-agency approach to be adopted and highlighted that resettlement must address practical issues which exist for prisoners such as housing as this is an important indicator of community re-integration.

The Review of Criminal Justice System in NI (March 2000) recommended “that the Prison and Probation Services should work together to prepare release packages for prisoners". The following year the Home Office thematic inspection report on resettlement referred specifically to the need for this work to include “assistance in securing housing for prisoners after release, taking account of risk and needs assessment". The close link between re-offending behaviour and homelessness and the importance of inter-agency working to break this cycle was again a central theme in the Social Exclusion Unit’s report “Reducing re-offending by ex prisoners" (2002).

In this context, the first dedicated Resettlement Strategy for NI “Preparing for release from prison and reducing re-offending" (NIPS/PBNI) was published in June 2004. Notably this document contained a formal statement of shared commitment from a range of statutory and voluntary agencies to work in partnership to implement the strategy.

It sought to drive forward action to reduce re-offending and reconviction of prisoners on release and contained recommendations for change which would seek to ensure all those leaving prison had secured accommodation prior to their release. The importance of accommodation and inter-agency working in effectively re-integrating prisoners into the community has continued to be highlighted within subsequent reports, particularly:

Dealing with the re-integration needs of women prisoners in NI (NIPS, Oct 2005);

Criminal Justice Inspection Report on the NI Prisoner Resettlement Strategy (June 2007);

Criminal Justice Inspection Report on Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre (July 2008).

2.0 Aims & Objectives of the Protocol

This Protocol is a practical expression of this spirit of shared commitment. When implemented, it will provide accommodation solutions which will make a positive difference for those leaving the prison system in NI. The broad aims and related objectives for the Protocol are identified below:

3.0 Legislative Framework

The key pieces of legislation identified as relevant to the Protocol are:

• The Prison Act (NI) 1953 – sets out the main statutory duties of the Northern Ireland Prison Service including provision for schemes aimed at the rehabilitation of offenders;
• The Housing (NI) Order 1981, (as amended by the Housing (NI) Order 2003) – sets out the structure, financing and general functions of the NIHE and includes provision for a scheme to govern the allocation of social rented housing;
• Probation Board (NI) Order 1982 – outlines the Board’s mandatory and discretionary functions, including duties in relation to the provision of approved accommodation in connection with the supervision and assistance of offenders;
• The Housing (NI) Order 1988, (as amended by the Housing (NI) Order 2003) – confers powers and duties on the NIHE in respect of persons who present to it as homeless;
• Criminal Justice (NI) Order 1996 – gives the courts the power to include a condition of residence in a Probation Order;
• The Housing and Support Services (NI) Order 2002 – outlines the powers of the NIHE to secure the provision of housing support services by way of funding;
• The Housing Benefit Regulations (NI) 2006 – sets out the law relating to Housing Benefit in Northern Ireland;
• Data Protection Act 1998 - protects the rights of the individual about whom data is obtained, shared, processed or supplied and gives individuals right of access to information held on them. The Act applies to both computerised and paper records.
• Human Rights Act 1998 – makes basic rights and freedoms available to all individuals from the European Convention on Human Rights, enforceable in UK courts.

4.0 Strategic and Operational Framework

The following represent the key strategic and supporting documents[2] with identified links to this Protocol:

Key Documents

• Review of Criminal Justice System in NI (Mar 2000)
• Home Office Thematic Inspection Report on Resettlement (2001)
• Social Exclusion Unit’s Report – “Reducing Re-offending by Ex-prisoners" (July 2002)
• NIHE Homelessness Strategy (Oct 2002)
• PBNI Offender Accommodation Strategy 2003 (Dec 2003)
• NIPS/PBNI Resettlement Strategy (June 2004) and subsequent updated Implementation Plans 2005-2007 and 2007-2010
• NIHE Supporting People Strategy 2005-2010 (Sept 2005)
• NIPS study report carried out at Hydebank Wood into the re-integration needs of women prisoners in Northern Ireland (October 2005)
• Inspection Report on the Northern Ireland Prisoner Resettlement Strategy by the Criminal Justice Inspection (June 2007)
• Inspection Report on Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in NI (July 2008)

Supporting Documents

• NIHE Belfast Rough Sleepers Strategy (April 2004)
• Department for Social Development (DSD) - “Including the Homeless" (July 2007)
• Public Protection Arrangements for NI - Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders in NI (Nov. 2008)
• Regional Good Practice Guide agreed between NIHE and Health and Social Services Trusts, entitled Meeting the Accommodation and Support Needs of 16-21 olds (Publication imminent at time of writing)

The following documents are also directly relevant to the operation of this framework and have been considered in the preparation of this Protocol:

• NIHE Guidance Manuals on:
  Homelessness (October 2002)
  Housing Selection Scheme (October 2002 – reviewed December 2006)
  Supporting People Commissioning Process (April 2003)
  Housing Benefit (February 2006)
• NIPS Resettlement Operational Performance Standards (July 2007)
• PBNI Northern Ireland Standards for the Assessment, Management and Supervision of Offenders (June 2006)

5.0 Remit of the Partner Agencies

Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE)

NIHE is Northern Ireland’s comprehensive regional housing authority. The organisation’s goal is to provide everyone, including ex-offenders, with the opportunity to access decent, affordable housing in safe and sustainable communities as well as to support the provision of support services through the Supporting People programme for those at risk of offending or re-offending.

Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS)

NIPS serves the community by keeping in secure, safe and humane custody those committed by the courts; by working with prisoners and with other organisations seeks to reduce the risk of re-offending; and in so doing aims to protect the public and to contribute to peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Probation Board Northern Ireland (PBNI)

PBNI is a community based Board with the status of a non departmental Public Body whose aim is to help reduce crime and the harm it does. With the known link between homelessness and re-offending, the Board’s Accommodation Strategy is to secure accommodation which contributes to the safe management of offenders in the community and a reduction in crime.

Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland (CHNI)

CHNI represents organisations working with homeless people. Currently, CHNI membership comprises over 100 organisations from the community/voluntary, statutory and private sectors who, between them offer some 2,000 accommodation places to homeless people, including those on remand in the community and ex-prisoners, throughout Northern Ireland and organise a wide range of support, outreach and accommodation services.

Housing Rights Service (HRS)

HRS is a voluntary organisation which works to achieve positive change by protecting and promoting the rights of people in housing need in NI. The organization provides advice, training and information on housing and homelessness issues and is responsible for the delivery of a specialist housing advice service within the NI prisons.

Northern Ireland Association for Care & Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

NIACRO is a voluntary sector organisation whose mission is to work to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities. NIACRO recognises suitable accommodation is a fundamental element of effective resettlement. The organisation provides a specialist welfare rights, advice and advocacy service to prisoners/ex prisoners and their families, and works with people whose offending or anti-social behaviour has caused difficulties in the community.

Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA)

NIFHA represents 36 registered housing associations in Northern Ireland. It recognises the importance of forging links and working in partnership with other agencies on behalf of its members in order to improve the social well-being of people in need of accommodation, including ex-prisoners, through helping to provide decent and affordable homes.

The following sections (6.0 - 9.0) detail the actions required at various stages of prison life to meet the housing, housing advice and related support needs of people entering or leaving custody. The stages also identify the lead agency responsible for carrying out the actions along with relevant partners who can assist in the process. Reference is made throughout the stages to various pro formas (e.g. see pro forma 1.3) and flowcharts (e.g. see Flowchart NIPS/IP1). These pro formas and flowcharts are designed for operational use by staff in the relevant agencies and are contained in broader Housing Information Directories located in each prison as a tool to assist in implementation of the Protocol. (A comprehensive list of the pro formas is contained in Appendix 2 along with details of where to obtain copies. The same information for the flowcharts can be found in Appendix 3).

6.0 Stage 1: On Reception in Prison
(on remand / pre sentence)

Coming into prison on remand is a very uncertain time; nevertheless effective planning and intervention at this stage is crucial to long term housing outcomes. If suitable accommodation can be found, some prisoners may be released to spend the remainder of their time on bail in the community. For the remainder, the emphasis is on immediate intervention to maintain, where appropriate, the tenancy during the time on remand. It is also possible that, for a variety of reasons, people may be released back into the community directly from the court. If this seems likely it is essential that people are advised of what to do on release. Where the person is vulnerable or has complex needs every effort should be made to reduce the likelihood of them returning to the community without appropriate accommodation and support in place.

7.0 Stage 2: On Reception in Prison (post sentence)

Effective intervention at this stage is crucial in preventing homelessness among those leaving custody. Such interventions should be undertaken within the first 48 hours if possible. The emphasis during this initial phase will be on immediate intervention to maintain the tenancy in the short term.

8.0 Stage 3: During Custody

This period will require follow up action leading either to long term tenancy sustainment or appropriate termination. It will also involve an ongoing assessment of housing/support needs and associated risks for each individual. Each prisoner has different needs and the extent of activity depends on the complexity of the issues which they are facing and the length of their sentence.

9.0 Stage 4: Discharge

At the end of the period in prison it is essential that each person’s release is properly planned and that, where possible, people have a stable base to return to in the community. The focus at this stage is, therefore, on ensuring appropriate accommodation, (temporary or permanent), and associated support services are in place for each person leaving custody. Where this is not possible, prisoners should be provided with information on where to go to get help with any outstanding housing issues.

10.0 Communication & Information Sharing

10.1 Introduction

Information sharing will be fundamental to achieving the aim of this Protocol and this section contains the detailed arrangements of how information will be shared (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘information sharing arrangement’).

10.2 Application

The information sharing arrangement applies to serving prisoners and ex-prisoners who have been identified within the Protocol as requiring accommodation and support needs. This includes those on remand.

10.3 Definitions

Please see Appendix 5A for other data sharing definitions used in this Protocol.

10.4 Scope

The Protocol is an agreement between the parties listed at Section 1.0 to facilitate the sharing of information necessary to provide relevant housing and housing advice and/or support to prisoners.

This includes sharing of personal data, (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998). The agreement does not impose a duty to disclose data in any particular case nor does it provide the power to demand disclosure.

10.5 Purpose

The parties agree that the personal information obtained through the Protocol shall not be used for any purpose other than to assist in meeting the aims and objectives of the Protocol, and shall not be shared with any other individual or group, unless disclosure is required by law.

10.6 Underpinning principles

• Information will be shared only with housing providers approved by ‘Supporting People’, partners that provide related support services and/or housing advice
• Personal information will only be shared when we, the disclosing partners, are satisfied that we are legally empowered to do so; that the proposed disclosure of personal information will be done in accordance with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and Common Law on duty of confidentiality (see Appendix 5B).
• Information sharing should be proportionate and relevant to the purpose.
• All the parties will respect the rights of the individual to confidentiality
• and will not generally release information without consent unless the law permits.
• Information is shared to protect the public, the applicant and staff of
• organisations providing housing, housing advice and related support services for those entering or leaving custody.
• Where there are issues of child protection or risk of harm either to the client or the community, information will be shared with the appropriate authorities.

10.7 Description of information to be shared.

For the purposes of this Protocol only the following information will be shared with the prisoner’s consent:

10.7.1 Northern Ireland Housing Executive

will provide information in relation to

• Reasons for negative decisions taken under the Housing (NI) Order 1988.

10.7.2 NI Prison Service

will provide information on prisoners in relation to:

• Remand status
• Length of sentence
• Estimated date of release
• Resettlement needs as contained in the Resettlement Needs Profile
• Transfer to another prison
• Any risk factors as identified by the prison.

10.7.3 Probation Board NI

will provide information on:

• The prisoner’s background, as contained in the referral form
• Risk assessment as appropriate including risk of re-offending and potential to cause harm to self or others
• Information relating to offence history. (Note: The criminal record should not be attached to the referral form)
• Suitability for accommodation
• Accommodation requirements
• Any statutory orders the prisoner may be subject to and the implications of this for the Accommodation project, prisoner, referral agency worker and relevant others.

10.7.4 Housing Rights Service

will provide relevant information on the nature of the client’s housing problem regarding an applicant’s personal and family background such as:

• health and current medical circumstances, including medication requirements
• addiction issues
• behaviour history
• offence history
• steps taken or being taken to address addiction or behaviour issues
• accommodation history
• risk information available to HRS from third parties.

10.7.5 NI Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

will provide information, provided by the client, to assist the resolution of housing issues such as:

• Reintegration needs
• Accommodation
• Family/relationships
• Community
• Offending behaviour
• Finances
• Health
• Education & employment
• Personal abilities.

10.7.6 Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) and

Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland (CHNI)

Whilst these organisations are parties to the Protocol no personal information will be shared with or by them in respect of the referral process.

10.8 Procedures for exchange of information

• All requests for assistance should be made by the prisoner.
• Relevant and proportionate information should be made available/shared only after obtaining the authorisation of the prisoner on the consent form (form1.1 -see Appendix 4).
• The prisoner consent form should be signed by both applicant and supporting staff (witness).
• Prisoners should have the referral process clearly explained to them.
• Information should be securely transferred to named staff managing the housing advice, housing and related support needs of those entering or leaving custody (See 10.9 below).
• Hard copies of criminal records/pre-sentence reports should not be attached to the application form.
• Information containing sensitive personal information such as DOBs, conviction details should not be sent between organisations electronically.
• Information sharing between a housing provider’s nominated manager and other staff should be limited to that necessary to protect the applicant, staff, the public and the property.
• Information regarding housing and homelessness applications should be transferred between prisons with the prisoner on transfer and any potential housing provider informed of the change of address.

10.9 Communication

In relation to the procedures outlined in 10.8 above, all parties to the Protocol, where relevant, will provide and update lists of staff as follows:

• List of named key contact staff within the agency along with their job title and their role/function;
• Other relevant contact details including address, telephone and fax number and e-mail address;
• Named Managers who can be contacted in emergencies or at times of concern or uncertainty.

10.10 Disclosure of Risk Information

The purpose of the disclosure of risk information about prisoners to accommodation providers is to:

• help minimise risk of homelessness upon entry to custody;
• assist in the allocation of appropriate housing, including temporary or shared housing for released prisoners;
• enable statutory and voluntary accommodation providers to safeguard the interests of current and future tenants and to protect housing and support staff;
• enable statutory and voluntary accommodation providers to safeguard the interests of prisoners and ex-prisoners applying for housing, or who are accepted as homeless;
• assist people before, during and post custody who have identified housing needs.

10.11 Consent

All requests for assistance with housing or housing support should come from the prisoner. The prisoner consent form should be discussed with the applicant by the relevant member of staff in the referral organisation. All information given and recorded should be clarified with the applicant who should confirm its accuracy. The applicant should be given a commitment that the information will be processed in line with their rights and will only be shared with their consent unless the law permits. The prisoner gives consent by signing the prisoner consent form (form 1.1 - see Appendix 4).

Where relevant data is shared, the explicit written consent of the prisoner will be required. In cases where consent cannot be obtained from a prisoner the data can only be shared if it is in the public interest to do so. This must be decided on a case by case basis. (See Appendix 5B, Public Interest).

11.0 Monitoring

The NIHE will be the lead agency with responsibility for monitoring the Protocol and will be supported by a monitoring group comprising representatives from all the parties to the Protocol. Its remit will include monitoring the effectiveness of the Protocol against the aims and objectives, as set out at Section 2.0, as well as ensuring that all parties comply with these arrangements. Monitoring will be ongoing but the monitoring group will meet initially on a quarterly basis.

12.0 Review

This Protocol will be reviewed annually from date of commencement (see 14.1). Each review will put forward proposals for any amendments to the Protocol and address any problems that have arisen and any recommendations made by the monitoring group in the interim.

Any concerns will be brought to the attention of each of the signatories to the Protocol, as necessary.

13.0 Complaints

Complaints including breaches of the Communication and Information sharing agreement should be dealt with through each of the parties’ normal organisational complaints procedures.

14.0 Signatories

14.1 We the undersigned have read and agree to this Protocol which will facilitate the carrying out of our roles and responsibilities in respect of the provision of housing and housing support/advice to those entering and leaving custody.

The Protocol comes into effect on 01st MAY 2009

Individual parties may cancel (in writing) this agreement at any time.

Agreed date of signing: 01st MAY 2009

14.2 Signed for: Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Name:

Position:

Signature:

14.3 Signed for: Northern Ireland Prison Service

Name:

Position:

Signature:

14.4 Signed for: Probation Board for Northern Ireland

Name:

Position:

Signature:

14.5 Signed for: Housing Rights Service

Name:

Position:

Signature:

14.6 Signed for: Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Name:

Position:

Signature:

Appendix 1

LOCATION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Appendix 2

List of pro formas referred to in Sections 6.0 – 9.0

All of the pro formas referred to above are contained in the Housing Information Directories which are available in the Resettlement Unit of each of the prisons or samples can be obtained by contacting:

Project Manager (Prisons)
Housing Rights Service
4th Floor, Middleton Buildings
10-12 High Street
BELFAST
BT1 2BA

(t) 028 9024 5640
(f) 028 9031 2200
(e) peter@housingrights.org.uk

Appendix 3

Flowcharts

NIPS / REM – An accommodation checklist for use by NIPS staff for prisoners on remand.

NIPS/ IP1 – An accommodation checklist for use by NIPS staff for prisoners entering custody within 48 hours (i.e. IP1 - intervention point 1).

NIPS / IP2/3 – An accommodation checklist and resettlement needs assessment/review flowchart for use by NIPS staff for those in custody requiring housing advice either from:

• after 48 hours to within 28 days of committal (i.e. IP2 - intervention point 2)
• after 28 days in custody as a sentenced prisoner but prior to 3 months before their release date (i.e. also IP3 - intervention point 3)
• having been on remand over 28 days (i.e. IP3 - intervention point 3).

NIPS / IP4 – An accommodation checklist for use by NIPS staff for those sentenced prisoners requiring housing advice within 3 months prior to their release date up to within the last 28 days (i.e. IP4 - intervention point 4).

PBNI / IP4 & IP5 – An accommodation checklist for prisoners with statutory supervision only and thus for use by PBNI staff for prisoners accessing the housing advice service within 3 months (i.e. IP4 – intervention point 4) or else 28 days prior to their release date (i.e. IP5 – intervention point 5).

RNA Tool – Resettlement Needs Analysis pro forma.

All of the flowcharts referred to above are contained in the Housing Information Directories which are available in the Resettlement Unit of each of the prisons or samples can be obtained by contacting:

Project Manager (Prisons)
Housing Rights Service
4th Floor, Middleton Buildings
10-12 High Street
BELFAST
BT1 2BA

(t) 028 9024 5640
(f) 028 9031 2200
(e) peter@housingrights.org.uk

Appendix 4

Form 1.1 Prisoner Consent Form

Consent

The information I have given is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that this is to help provide me with the most appropriate advice and/or accommodation. I understand that if I obtain accommodation by knowingly giving false or inaccurate information, I risk losing the accommodation provided to me.

Information Exchange

In order for agencies to find out if they can meet your needs, and provide appropriate housing advice, housing and/or support services, they need to know relevant information about yourself, your accommodation requirements, your offending history and any risk of harm you may pose to either yourself or other people. In order for us to assist you, we must have your consent to share this information with relevant agencies that can help meet your needs.

• I agree to allow any relevant information to be shared with housing providers and any other organisation that may be able to assist in providing me with suitable accommodation or help with other housing advice or support services.
• I understand that each organisation my information is shared with, will adhere to the Principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 and will not disclose my information further unless the law permits, e.g. if there is a serious risk of harm to others or myself.
• I understand that this information about me will be held securely by the organisation/organisations to whom it is disclosed but only for a limited time.
• The referral process has been fully explained to me and I understand the nature of the consent I am giving.

Signed:

Witnessed by:

Print Name:

Agency/Employer:

Dated:

Appendix 5A

Information Sharing Definitions

Data

Information which:

a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for this purpose;

b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by such equipment;

c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system;

d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68 of the Data Protection Act 1998;

e) is recorded information held by a public authority, not falling within any of paragraphs (a)-(d).

Data Controller

A person who (either alone or jointly in common with other persons) determines the purposes for which and the manner in which any personal data are, or are to be processed.

Data Processor

Any person who, in relation to personal data (other than an employee of the Data Controller), processes the data on behalf of the Data Controller.

Data Subject

An individual who is the subject of personal data.

Personal Data

Data which relate to a living individual who can be identified-

(a) from those data; or

(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the Data Controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the Data Controller or any other person in respect of the individual.

Processing

Means obtaining, recording or holding information or data or carrying out any operation or sets of operations on the information or data, including –

a) organisation, adaptation or alteration of the information or data;

b) retrieval, consultation or use of the information or data;

c) disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available; or

d) alignment, combination, blocking, erasure or destruction of the information or data.

Sensitive Personal Data

Personal data consisting of information as to:-

a) the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject;

b) his political opinions;

c) his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature;

d) whether he is a member of a trade union;

e) his physical or mental health or condition;

f) his sexual life;

g) the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence; or any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by him, the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings.

Appendix 5B

Legal Principles

1.0 We are legally empowered to do so

Each of the parties involved in any information sharing arrangement is responsible for their own information and therefore must be sure that they have the power to disclose the relevant information in each particular case.

In disclosing the relevant information relating to 10.8 - 10.8.6 the parties rely on the individual legislative authority detailed at 3.0 of the Protocol.

2.0 The Principles of the Data Protection Act 1998

Fair and Lawful

All parties agree that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless certain conditions are met as required by Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Where information is shared under the terms of this Protocol, for the purposes set out in the aims and objectives (Section 2), the conditions of Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 are met for processing of the data in Schedule 2, paragraph 1 and Schedule 3, paragraph 1.

Limited Purposes

All parties agree that information will not be used for any other purpose than that for which it was given, and will not be disclosed to another agency or body without the permission of the agency which provided the information.

Adequate, Relevant and Not Excessive.

All parties agree that only the minimum data necessary will be exchanged to satisfy the purpose of the disclosure.

Data Quality

All parties agree to ensure that the data shared is as far as reasonable, accurate and up to date. All parties agree that data discovered to be inaccurate or inadequate for the specified purpose will be brought to the notice of the originator of the data. The originator will be responsible for correcting the data and notifying all other recipients of the corrections.

Retention and Destruction of The Data

All parties agree that the relevant data will be retained by the party to whom it is disclosed until it is no longer required for the purposes of any legal action or appeal process. At the expiry of this period the party to whom it had been disclosed will destroy the relevant information in keeping with that organisation’s retention and disposal policy.

Subject Access Requests

If one party to this agreement receives a subject access application and personal data is subsequently identified as having originated from the other party, it will be the responsibility of the receiving party to contact the originator of the data to determine whether the originator wishes to claim an exemption under the provisions of the Act.

Security

Each of the parties to this agreement is responsible for ensuring that they have appropriate security arrangements in place. They will consider how the relevant data will be stored, accessed and transmitted.

The relevant manager for each party will ensure that adequate steps are taken to prevent

a) accidental or deliberate destruction of the data;

b) accidental or deliberate modification of the data;

c) deliberate and unauthorised unavailability of the data;

d) unauthorised access to information to any computer system containing the data;

e) misuse of the data.

Common Law Duty of Confidentiality

Where an agency owes a common law duty of confidentiality, that duty of confidentiality continues to apply. Where consent cannot be obtained from the data subject to share/disclose his or her personal data with the other agency, that agency must consider whether they have sufficient public interest grounds to override this duty. If the agency does not consider that there is sufficient overriding public interest to make the disclosure it must not do so.

Public Interest

If consent has been sought and refused, or if it would prejudice the work of any of the statutory/voluntary agencies to seek consent, an overriding public interest may justify disclosure.

When judging the public interest the following factors will generally be relevant:

• The administration of justice.
• Maintaining public safety.
• The apprehension of offenders.
• The prevention of crime and disorder.
• The detection of crime.
• The protection of vulnerable members of the community.

When judging the public interest it is necessary to consider the following:

• Is the intended disclosure proportionate to the intended aim?
• What is the vulnerability of those who are at risk?
• What is the likely impact of the disclosure on the prisoner/ex prisoner?
• Is there another equally effective means of achieving the same aim?
• Is the disclosure necessary to prevent or detect and uphold the rights and freedoms of the public?
• Is it necessary to disclose the information/data to protect other vulnerable people?

The rule of proportionality should be applied to ensure that a fair balance is achieved between the public interest and the right of the data subject.

Human Rights Act 1998

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, home and his correspondence and that there shall be no interference by a public authority with this right except as in accordance with the law and as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of:

a) National security

b) Public safety

c) Economic well being of the country

d) The prevention of crime and disorder

e) The protection of health or morals

f) The protection of the rights or freedoms of others.

If the disclosure of data will in some way infringe the rights of the data subject the rule of proportionality will be applied. This is to ensure fair balance between the protection of the individual’s rights and the general interests of society.

Appendix 6

Form 1.9 Hostel Referral Form

Please communicate outcome to: Name: Agency:

Ph No: And post completed outcome sheet to the above named at:

Resettlement Office, HMP (Insert Prison address)

[1] Other offence categories are: (i) Children and vulnerable adults from October 2008; (ii) Domestic Violence from October 2009 and (iii) Hate Crime from April 2011.

[2] Details of where to obtain copies of these documents are contained in Appendix 1

Northern Ireland Federation
of Housing Associations

Housing (Amendment) Bill
Date: 26 August 2009

Introduction

The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) represents registered and non-registered housing associations in Northern Ireland. Collectively, these associations provide 30,000 good quality, affordable homes for renting or equity sharing. Further information is available at www.nifha.org

Background

This paper reflects the briefing the Federation offered the Committee in private session on 23 April 2009.

The Federation gathers that preliminary work on another Housing Bill has started.

The Federation’s Views on the Housing (Amendment) Bill

Clauses 6 – 8: Registered Housing Associations

Ever since the Housing (NI) Order 1976 the Department for Social Development has had far-reaching powers to safeguard the public investment in, and tenants of, registered housing associations. To date, the most stringent of those powers have never been used in Northern Ireland.

Recognising the importance of safeguarding the excellent record of the housing association movement, the Federation is not opposed to the further powers the DSD proposes to take but trusts that the Social Development Committee will help ensure that they will only be used in extremely urgent and serious cases.

Clause 9: Introductory Tenancies

For many years the Abandonment Notice procedure for secure tenancies has proved very useful for registered housing associations. The Federation welcomes the proposal that they should also be able to use this power in relation to introductory tenancies.

Proposed Additional Clauses

Rationalisation of Measures to Prevent Conflicts of Interest in registered Housing Associations

All involved in registered housing associations unreservedly accept that voluntary Board members and housing association employees should take decisions for the benefit of the community and not their private interests.

The relevant legislation has always included measures to achieve this objective but the present Article 31 of the Housing Order (NI) 1992 should be rationalised to suit present and future circumstances.

Rather than the present “blanket ban" on all dualities of interest other than a few categories specifically excluded by DSD Determinations made under paragraph (5)(f) of Article 31, the Assembly should give the DSD power to approve (and revise as necessary) a Code of Conduct designed to achieve the agreed objective. This approach has proved effective in England for many years and has the considerable advantages of being much more practical, flexible and proportionate to the relevant risks.

Power for the Housing Executive to Delegate Assessment of Homelessness

Sir David Varney’s report (April 2008) on improving the competitiveness of the local economy made the linked recommendations that:

• the Northern Ireland Executive should consider separating the strategic and landlord functions of the NIHE and transferring the stock to an independent body (which could then raise private finance without being constrained by public expenditure rules)
• HM Treasury should consider offsetting the outstanding debt on the NIHE’s housing stock.

Just as the present Housing (Amendment) Bill makes provision for some future contingencies (e.g. the considerable powers in clauses 6 – 8 if grave problems emerge in a registered housing association) it would be sensible for the Assembly to take this legislative opportunity to give the NIHE power to delegate the assessment of homelessness to other bodies. English and Welsh local authorities that transferred their housing have used an equivalent power to legally delegate their homelessness assessment responsibilities to the respective stock transfer organisations.

Other Points

Repeal of the Rent Surplus Fund

In April 2009 we asked the Committee to use the present legislative opportunity to repeal the Rent Surplus Fund (established by Article 37 of the Housing (NI) Order 1992) because:

• the DSD agrees it no longer serves a useful purpose
• it represents a significant bureaucratic burden on associations
• the equivalent legislation has long since been repealed in England, Wales and Scotland.

The Minister for Social Development accepts the point and has assured the Federation that administrative action will be taken to minimise the bureaucracy of the Rent Surplus Fund system. In addition, we understand that the DSD intends to make provision for repealing Article 37 in the next Housing Bill.

Given these assurances, the Federation is no longer asking the Committee to deal with this matter via the present Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Conclusion

The Federation welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s deliberations on housing legislation and will do its best to provide further information on request.

Chris Williamson
Chief Executive

T: 028 9023 0446 E: cwilliamson@nifha.org
W: www.nifha.org A: 38 Hill Street, Belfast, BT1 2LB

Northern Ireland Housing Council

Mr Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

13th August 2009 HC/consult response/09

Dear Mr Martin,

Housing (Amendment ) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2009

Further to your correspondence dated 26th June 2009 and my correspondence with Claire McCanny earlier this month I would like to respond to the Housing Bill on behalf of the Northern Ireland Housing Council.

As explained to Ms McCanny the Housing Council recessed over July and was not in a position to consider the proposals until its meeting today.

Members welcomed the Bill’s formalisation of issues that have been under discussion for sometime and look forward to the implementation of the elements, particularly in relation to Homelessness. The Housing Council is currently awaiting introduction of this legislation before entering into discussions with the Housing Executive on the current Homelessness Strategy.

One issue however discussed in greater detail was the proposal relating to changes to the representation of the Northern Ireland Housing Council on the NIHE Board.

In the past when changes were made to the legislation governing the number of Members on the Executive Board (Housing Bill (NIA Bill 24/01) the Housing Council recommended that the wording relating to Housing Council Board Membership should be changed to allow for any future changes in numbers at the Minister’s discretion. This would have served to negate the need for future changes to legislation should numbers of representatives increase. The Housing Council’s recommendation was not taken on Board hence the need for the current amendment. The current amendment as it is drafted will however carry the same flaw in that it does not allow for any further change to the number of Housing Council representatives on the Board should that be deemed appropriate in future.

This is a matter which will be the subject of further discussion with the Minister. The Housing Council as an elected representative body considers that the majority of Members of a Quango should be elected representatives and as such intends to seek further representation on the Housing Executive Board. Irrespective of whether or not the Housing Council’s representations to the Minister are successful Members feel that it is prudent to make provision for possible change in numbers within the forthcoming legislation.

Accordingly the Housing Council would recommend that the Bill is changed as follows:

Miscellaneous

Increase in Housing Council representation on Executive

12. In paragraph 1(1) to the Order of 1981 (the Northern Ireland Housing Executive), for the words “three" there shall be substituted “a minimum of four, or such greater number as decided by the Minister".

I would be grateful if you would advise in due course if the Housing Council’s recommendation has been taken on board.

Yours faithfully,

Robert McKee
Chairman

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

Northern Ireland
Human Rights Comission

Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission Supplementary Evidence

Roisin Devlin
Investigations Worker
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Temple Court
39, North Street
Belfast
BT1 1NA

Telephone: +44 (0)28 9024 3987
Textphone: +44 (0)28 9024 9066
Fax: +44 (0)28 9024 7844
SMS: +44 (0)77 8620 2075

Email: roisin.devlin@nihrc.org
From: Roisin Devlin [Roisin.Devlin@nihrc.org]
To: McCallion, Peter; +Comm. Soc Dev Public Email
Subject: Housing (Amendment) Bill - further information from NIHRC

Peter,

As discussed, I’ve attached a copy of a letter to the Chair of the Committee from the Chief Executive providing further information on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The letter will be forwarded by post today.

In our evidence to the Committee, we asked for clarification on the policy intention for changing the word “applicant" to “person" in Article 7A (5) of the Housing (NI) Order 1988. It is our understanding that a person becomes an “applicant" only once they have submitted a homelessness application under Article 7 of the 1988 Order. We had some concerns that by changing the wording to “person" there is a risk that an individual might be refused homelessness assistance before they have become an “applicant" that is, before they have submitted a full homelessness application and been properly assessed. This is perhaps not the policy intention or how the provision will work in practice but we would be grateful for clarification on this matter.

If you have any questions or require further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Many Regards

Roisin

Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission Supplementary Evidence

Mr Simon Hamilton MLA
Chairperson
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

29 September 2009

Dear Mr Hamilton

Housing (Amendment) Bill

The Commission was grateful for the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the Committee on the Housing (Amendment) Bill on 24 September. During the evidence session the Committee requested further written information on whether or not the Commission has a view regarding NIACRO’s position on intentional homelessness. A response on this issue is set out below, in addition to further clarification regarding the Commission’s evidence on intentionality and the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003.

Imprisonment and intentional homelessness

The Commission understands that NIACRO is concerned about the potential for released prisoners to be deemed intentionally homeless because the loss of accommodation has resulted from an offence having been committed and subsequent imprisonment. The Commission did not provide any input regarding imprisonment and intentional homelessness in its evidence on the Housing (Amendment) Bill. Nevertheless, having been asked by the Committee to consider this specific issue the Commission would refer Committee members to the following international human rights standards, which are relevant to prisoner release and resettlement:

• Access to appropriate accommodation is an important aspect of the resettlement process. International human rights standards establish that resettlement forms an integral part of the right of all persons deprived of liberty to be treated with humanity and dignity. Article 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation". Commenting on the operation of this provision, the UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that the criminal justice system “should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the prisoner" and to this end, the Committee asks that when reporting on obligations under Article 10 of the Covenant, States parties provide information on the extent to which they provide assistance after release.[1]
• In addition, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners set out principles to guide States on prison release:

Services and agencies, governmental or otherwise, which assist released prisoners to re-establish themselves in society shall ensure, so far as is possible and necessary, that released prisoners be provided with appropriate documents and identification papers, have suitable homes and work to go to, are suitably and adequately clothed having regard to the climate and season, and have sufficient means to reach their destination and maintain themselves in the period immediately following their release.[2]

Given the importance of appropriate accommodation to resettlement, the Commission would be concerned, both for the individual and the community, about any legislative provision, policy or practice that would render a person homeless by virtue of them having been imprisoned following conviction for a criminal offence. The Commission therefore recommends that any policy on accommodation for those released from prison is based on best practice and complies with international human rights standards.

Intentionality and the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003

In its initial letter to the Committee, the Commission recommended that consideration be given to the scheme of the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003 in so far as it seeks to achieve progressive realisation of the right to housing. The Commission brought the 2003 Act to the attention of the Committee because that legislation has been recognised by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a positive measure for progressive realisation of the right to housing within Article 11 of the Covenant. However, the Commission accepts that whether the 2003 Act should be implemented in Northern Ireland is not a matter for consideration within the current Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Commission understands that the Bill is aimed at clarifying the existing law or, where appropriate, ensuring that Northern Ireland homelessness legislation corresponds with what exists in England and Wales.

To alter the legislative provisions on intentionality would require significant policy change that is likely to be outside the remit of the Housing (Amendment) Bill and may be better considered under separate legislation. Further consultation is required to establish how best to achieve progressive realisation of the right to housing for everyone in Northern Ireland. This should include considering whether or not it is feasible and sustainable to set out a time scale for removal of the ‘priority need’ and intentionality criteria so that, eventually, all persons found homeless in Northern Ireland are entitled to homelessness assistance. This would correspond with the recommendation of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that the government “take into consideration the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003 as best practice, especially its provision relating to the right to housing as an enforceable right."[3]

There is potential for the Housing Executive to clarify how it operates the policy on intentionality. During its recent investigation resulting in the report No Home from Home, the Commission found that non-UK nationals might be deemed intentionally homeless because they had left accommodation abroad. However, investigators did not find a consistent approach to this issue and therefore Recommendation 21 of the investigation states that:

The Housing Executive should develop human rights compliant guidance outlining the circumstances in which having accommodation abroad can result in a finding that homelessness has been intentional (p145, No Home from Home).

The Commission will be working with the relevant agencies, including the Housing Executive, in the coming weeks to devise action plans for the implementation of the investigation’s recommendations.

I hope that this clarifies matters for the Committee. Should Committee members require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Investigations Workers Roisin Devlin or Sorcha McKenna.

Yours sincerely

Peter O’Neill
Chief Executive

[1] Human Rights Committee (1992) General Comment No. 21: Concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty (Art. 10), 10/04/92 at paragraph 10.

[2] Rule 81(1) of the Standard Minimum Rules, which were adopted in 1955 and reaffirmed by the Economic and Social Council in 1977.

[3] Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2009) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Dependent Territories, 22 May 2009, para 29.

Northern Ireland Local
Government Association

Minister Margaret Ritchie MLA
Department for Social Development
Voluntary & Community Unit
The Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
BELFAST
BT7 2JB

9 September 2009

Dear Minister

Housing (Amendment) Bill

Further to our recent meeting, NILGA is extremely pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Housing (Amendment) Bill whilst in Committee Stage.

I enclose a copy of correspondence forwarded to Mr Peter McCallion, Clerk to the Social Development Committee for your information.

Yours Sincerely,

Heather Moorhead
Chief Executive

Northern Ireland Local
Government Association

Peter McCallion
Clerk to the Social Development Committee
Room 412, Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast BT4 3XX

9 September 2009

Dear Mr McCallion

Housing (Amendment) Bill

Further to our recent telephone conversation, NILGA is extremely pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Housing (Amendment) Bill whilst in Committee Stage.

NILGA would like to respond to the Social Development Committee specifically on Clause 12 which proposes to increase the number of Housing Council nominees on the Board of the Housing Executive from three to four.

NILGA believes that it is crucial that local people, through their elected representatives, have the opportunity to contribute directly to the running of public bodies which provide vital services to the people of Northern Ireland. Elected representatives bring knowledge of the local area that is of significant importance to the development of services which are responsive to the needs of local people. Rather than eroding the involvement of elected representatives on public bodies, we believe there is a strong case for increasing this involvement.

NILGA would therefore assert that in order to ensure political and democratic accountability, the majority of representation on the Housing Executive Board should consist of elected members.

Should you require any further information, please contact Claire Bradley at the NILGA offices: c.bradley@nilga.org (028) 90798972

Yours Sincerely,

Heather Moorhead~
Chief Executive

cc: Minister Margaret Ritchie MLA

Committee for the Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister

Office of the
First Minister and deputy First Minister

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Police Service of
NI-Criminal Justice Branch

Private Rented Sector Consultation
Network Northern Ireland

P R S Consultation Network
(the Private Rented Sector working in partnership on quality housing initiatives)

To Committee for Social Development
Housing (Amendment) Bill
Public Consultation
N I Assembly
Stormont
Belfast

16th July 2009.

Dear Sir / Madam

Housing (Amendment) Bill - Public Consultation - Our Formal Response

We have only just become aware that the closing date for submissions is end of the current week so we will be brief in our written evidence:

Section 27A in relation to Anti Social Behaviour. We are satisfied with the minor amendments in relation to anti social behaviour. Indeed, we fully support the proposed Government measures to help curtail this increasing scourge on all aspects of our society, and all participants in the PRS (including landlords) must be seen to step up to the mark so that, together, we can present a united and effective front and effort against those acts of disruption which affect all of us.

Section 19A (3) at par (iii) period of “4 weeks" would be better reduced to “10 days"

Section 19A (4) at par (b) there should not be any need to “serve further notice on the tenant"

Section 19B (1) appeal within 6 months is far too long. In these days of communication 30 days should be more than adequate. This would help to give the Landlord a little more security

Section 19B (2) (c) similarly the “reasonable" cause is too expansive and should be tightened up.

Where willingness exists there really is little excuse these days for not being able to make contact

Overall, we would have to say that there is little in this bill which would serve to give landlords greater protection especially in relation to their dealings with difficult tenants and we believe an opportunity here has been lost. Nevertheless we wish you well in your efforts.

Gordon Wright
Secretary PRS Consultation Network NI

NOTES: Our PRS Network is the only group bringing together leading private landlords with local authority networks, energy suppliers, the property sector and key statutory agencies with the aim of promoting general efficiency and professionalism within the private rented sector. By providing stakeholder expertise and collaboration, the Network offers a unique progressive forum to develop opportunities for :

• addressing the poor image, including raising profile, of landlords
• a professional voice and code of conduct, especially for the smaller landlord
• providing feedback and consultation in a non-adversarial manner
• influencing key policy issues
• acting in partnership with other like minded bodies and helping promote better understandings

The Private Rented Sector Consultation Network N Ireland E mail wgw70@yahoo.com
Secretary : Gordon Wright 70 Demesne Road Holywood Co Down BT18 9EX Telephone 02890 427201

Probation Board for Northern Ireland

80/90 North Street
Belfast
BT1 1LD
T: 028 9026 2400
F: 028 9026 2450
E: info@pbni.org.uk
W: www.pbni.org.uk

Brian McCaughey, Director of Probation
Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Committee for Social Development
Northern Ireland Assembly
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast BT4 3XX

9th July 2009

Dear Sir

Probation Board for Northern Ireland written evidence in response to Housing (Amendment) Bill

The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (hereafter referred to as ‘PBNI’) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

At the outset, I wish to make clear that the following comments reflect the views of the service and not those of the board. The timescales for return do not fit within board timetabling.

PBNI has strategic interest in developments regarding homelessness and other public housing issues. PBNI’s core business is the risk assessment and appropriate management/supervision of approximately 4,000 offenders with a view to making the community safer. Research clearly shows that offenders are 3x more likely to reoffend where they do not have stable accommodation.

PBNI is not asking for or expecting preferential treatment to be given to offenders but does believe strongly that offenders, first and foremost, are citizens and as such are entitled to the same services on the same basis as other citizens. This accords with the expectation in the Bill that NIHE “shall secure that advice about homelessness, and the prevention of homelessness, is available free of charge to any person in Northern Ireland."

The aim of PBNI is to help reduce crime and the harm it does

Given the problems that offending causes, including accommodation difficulties, PBNI welcomes the production of a homelessness strategy, a right of review of homelessness decisions and the provision of homelessness advice and information. Each of these should be helpful in defining expectations for offenders as citizens and also for promoting equality of practice and opportunity for offenders as citizens. The Bill makes clear an expectation that a homelessness strategy will “take into account the exercise of the functions of a range of bodies", naming the Probation Board as one such body. PBNI will wish to engage with NIHE and link PBNI‘s revised Accommodation Strategy to NIHE’s Homelessness Strategy.

The requirement for NIHE to publish its policies and procedures for dealing with occurrences of anti-social behaviour clarifies expectations for all citizens in public sector housing and is welcomed by PBNI.

In conclusion, as a separate statutory body, PBNI welcomes legislation that brings clarity and definition to any role that seeks to provide a public service for the mutual benefit of both the wider community and the range of public services.

Yours sincerely

Brian McCaughey
Director of Probation

Shelter NI

Comments on the Housing Amendment Bill
Wednesday, 02 September 2009

1.0 1ntroduction

1.1 Shelter Northern Ireland is a charity established in 1980, which works for the achievement of a decent home for everyone in Northern Ireland. We have responded to previous Government Housing Reviews and we welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to Housing Amendments Bill.

2.0 Duty of Executive to Formulate a Homelessness Strategy

2.1 Shelter agrees with this in principle and with the immediacy of the first strategy and the subsequent 5 year periodic reviews.

2.2 The proposed insertion into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of an Article 6A – (1) uses the words “may formulate and publish a homeless strategy". This is not definitive. The wording should impose a duty to formulate and to publish such a strategy on the Department/ Housing Executive.

2.3 The proposed insertions into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of Articles 6A – (2) and (5) (a)-(j) create a number of concerns:

2.3.1 First, there is a fundamental question about homelessness. It is our view that alleviating homelessness requires more than the provision of an adequate supply of suitable (permanent and temporary) accommodation. The capability of the individual or household to successfully occupy a suitable dwelling must be considered and services provided where needed, to ensure the best outcomes.

2.3.2 These legislative amendments acknowledge that other agencies have responsibilities to ensure that services are made available to homeless people. These other agency services should complement the housing services in a planned, timely manner to enable the likelihood of successful tenancies and the probability of leading to more sustainable communities. The Housing Executive is duty bound to meet its responsibilities in the proposed homeless strategy, but it has no authority to compel other agencies to work with it to successfully deliver the best outcomes from a homeless strategy. The amendments do not confer a clear and specific duty to co-operate or provide services in relation to preventing or alleviating homelessness on relevant agencies per se.

2.3.3 The Department/ Housing Executive need legislation which can compel the other relevant statutory agencies to co-operate and to make services available where a joint responsibility is identified. The wording of the Housing (NI) Order 1988, Article 14, provides a framework for such compliance. Shelter recommends that the legislation confers duties on statutory agencies both to co-operate with the Housing Executive in the formulation of the homelessness strategy and to provide or enable the provision of services.

2.4 The proposed insertion into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of Article 6B – (2) allows that particular agencies may include specific objectives to be pursued, and specific action planned to be taken. This should be made definitive and should include a specific timetable as a requirement for the production of the strategy.

2.5 The proposed insertion into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of Article 6B – (3) (a) should be made definitive and probably should be separated from Article 6B – (3) (b). There is much collaboration by statutory agencies with respect to joint working, but there needs to be a legislative onus on all statutory agencies which the Housing Executive can depend upon for those statutory agencies to meet their individual and joint responsibilities as outlined in 2.3.3 above.

2.6 The proposed insertion into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of Article 6B – (3) (b) is agreed as it reflects the efforts being made by non statutory providers to support a successful homeless strategy.

2.7 Into the proposed insertion into the Housing (NI) Order 1988 of Article 6B – (4) for those statutory agencies included in Article 6B – (3) (a) there should be an additional statement along the lines of “…. and that approval should not be unreasonably withheld"

2.8 Given their proposed role in relation to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) and potential increased role in relation to the Private Rental Sector, Local District Councils warrant a specific reference in the proposed Article 6A (5) and proposed Article 6B (2).

3.0 Eligibility for Assistance

3.1 Regarding the proposal to amend Article 7 (a) of the Housing (NI) Order 1988. Following the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission, in its report “No Home from Home", this Article should be suitably amended to ensure insofar as is possible that no one who lives here who is destitute is left homeless without shelter and assistance. There may be a need to withdraw this amendment and bring it forward, suitably amended, at another opportunity

4.0 Power of Department to describe form of advice and assistance

4.1 It is understood that this is an attempt to improve the provision of these services by giving a general power to prescribe these services to the Department. Shelter would recommend that the prescribed services set out in “The Homeless Persons Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 2002 ( SSI 2002 No.414)" are used as a good guidance template. We would like a timetable for the production of these also.

5.0 Reviews of Decisions in relation to Homelessness

5.1 Shelter supports the introduction of statutory rights and due legal process for people who are subject to decisions on homelessness to be able to challenge these.

6.0 Supplementary Provisions

6.1 The proposed insertion of paragraphs (2) and (3) into Article 8 refer. The intention of paragraph (2) is to break the temporary accommodation duty owed to a possible homeless person in apparent priority need following the Housing Executive notifying that person of its decision. Paragraph (3) allows the Executive the discretion to maintain a temporary accommodation service to that person pending a decision of the review including a review on a point of law. This is not regulation that is easy to apply consistently. Where the Executive operates its discretion not to provide temporary accommodation to the person and it is subsequently found that a temporary accommodation duty is owed (at least), there may be an issue of compensation awarded against the Executive at minimum. The circumstances applicable to this situation should either be clearly prescribed by regulation or the insertion paragraphs dropped.

7.0 Tenants Right of Appeal against Termination of Tenancy under Article 19 (a)

7.1 Page 13, line 20 refers. The dropping of the word “secure" from Part 2 of Schedule 3 of the Housing (NI) Order 1983 is an unnecessary removal of a matter which is an important consideration for the purposes of suitable accommodation. Shelter NI would not agree with the need for this amendment.

8.0 Definition of a House in Multiple Occupation

8.1 We share the concerns expressed by the Housing Rights Service on this matter.

For further information, please contact.

Tony Mc Quillan
Director
Shelter Northern Ireland
Campaign for Homeless People
58 Howard Street
Belfast BT1 6PJ
Tel:(028) 9024 7752
Fax:(028) 9024 7710
e-mail: shelterni@btconnect.com

Document Ends

Simon Community Northern Ireland

Response to Consultation on the Housing (Amendment) Bill Simon Community NI

Homelessness Strategy

In May 2004 the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee published ‘Housing the homeless’ in which both the Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive were criticised by for their delay in bringing forward a homelessness strategy. In July 2007, the Department for Social Development published ‘Including the Homeless’ a strategy to promote the social inclusion of homeless people, and those at risk of becoming homeless in Northern Ireland. This strategy, which has been agreed by the NI Executive, recommended a statutory requirement for the Housing Executive to publish a homelessness strategy. Therefore, a statutory requirement that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive formulates and publishes a homelessness strategy every five years is welcomed. However while we understand that clause 1 is a mandatory requirement by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), the use of the discretionary “may" in sub-paragraph (1) has the potential to confuse. Simon Community recommends that the directory “shall", should be substituted.

In so far as the strategy applies to all persons in Northern Ireland who are or may become homeless, regardless of status, Simon Community hopes that the strategy’s remit will refer expressly to all those who are or may be at risk of homelessness, including those persons who may be considered ineligible for assistance.

In so far as clause 1 attempts to secure the co-operation of other statutory agencies, we consider this to be critical to the effective delivery of the strategy. We suggest that the statutory agencies listed at sub-paragraph (5) should be required both to take into account and give effect to the strategy in the exercise of their functions. The list should also include reference to the Regional Public Health Agency, which is referred to later in the draft document.

Eligibility for Housing Assistance

Simon Community welcomes the statutory requirement that any decision that an applicant is ineligible for assistance together with the reasons for that decision must be given in writing. That alone, however, is insufficient. We suggest that the requirement to give written reasons is accompanied by a statutory requirement that information such as the right to request a review of the decision and the mechanism for further appeal to the county court should be included in the decision letter. It is essential that a person against whom a decision has been made to treat as ineligible be informed immediately of his or her right to challenge the decision how that challenge may be brought. That information should also contain details of advice and support that may be available. Furthermore, the information should be provided in the language of the applicant and in a format that is easily accessible.

Power of the Department to Prescribe form of Advice and Assistance

Simon Community welcomes the inclusion of a power to prescribe the form of advice and assistance that must be offered to an applicant however; we suggest that it does not go far enough. The quality of the advice and assistance provided will determine the effectiveness of the duty. We recommend that the Bill should stipulate the advice and assistance that must be provided and adopts a similar provision to that introduced in the Homelessness Act 2002 in England whereby the applicant’s housing needs must be assessed before the advice and assistance is given to ensure that it is applicant specific. That assessment should consider all those factors which make it difficult for an applicant to access and maintain accommodation such as poverty, health problems, disabilities and language barriers. The advice and assistance should consider the type of accommodation that would be appropriate for the applicant and include information about the likely availability of the type of accommodation suitable for the applicant. That advice and assistance should also include details of how to apply for accommodation and other advice agencies that may be available to assist. For example, the duty should require the Housing Executive to refer ineligible homeless applicants to social services for an assessment under the Children (NI) Order 1995 or the Health and Personal Social Services (NI) Order 1972. The duty to provide assistance should include a duty to consider the provision of a rent guarantee where the applicant may be unable to afford the deposit.

We invite you to consider the amendments to the Housing Act 1996 by the Homelessness Act 2002. Otherwise, it is likely that all an applicant will receive is a list of local letting agents or hostels.

Review of Decisions in Relation to Homelessness and Right of Appeal to the County Court on Points of Law

While Simon Community accepts that the right to review and to appeal to the County Court may be a positive development we are unable to support this provision unless and until clear rules are prescribed both as to the procedure on the review and on the appeal. This provision should not be enacted until regulations are in place prescribing those procedures. For example, the review should be conducted within a prescribed time limit and should not be conducted by an officer involved in the decision under review. A person challenging a decision by review should be entitled to representation at the review. To ensure that the provision is compliant with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the County Court must be enabled to conduct a thorough review of the decision and the decision-making process.

The right of appeal to the County Court appears to be limited to an appeal from a review decision or a failure to notify of a decision on review. The right to appeal is not afforded from a decision not to exercise power to secure accommodation pending appeal of the review itself. Accordingly, if the Housing Executive does not exercise its power to secure accommodation pending the appeal the applicant must bring separate judicial review proceedings to secure interim accommodation. We suggest that the right to appeal should include the right to challenge that decision in the County Court appeal itself and in the event that the appeal does include such a challenge that the Housing Executive has a duty to continue to provide accommodation pending the outcome of the appeal. Otherwise, an applicant will be prejudiced in pursuing the appeal if ejected from his or her accommodation.

Power to obtain Information from Registered Housing Associations.

Simon Community suggests that specific reference is made to statutory obligations under the Data Protection Act (1998):

Priority Need Young People

Current legislation states:

“‘a person without dependent children who satisfies the Executive that he has been subject to violence and is at risk of violent pursuit or, if he returns home, is at risk of further violence;’

‘a young person who satisfies the Executive that he is at risk of sexual or financial exploitation.’

‘“young person" means a person who is over compulsory school age (within the meaning of Article 46 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and has not attained the age of 21 years.’"

Simon Community suggests that the all 16 and 17 year olds who present as homeless are deemed to be in priority need.

Carol O’Bryan
Chief Executive
Simon Community Northern Ireland

17 August 2009

South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust

Southern Trust

Dear Mr. McCallion,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislative amendment. Given the significant body of evidence linking ill health with homelessness the Trust would clearly support the increased focus on the needs of people who are homeless for whatever cause. Each statutory body is required to deliver appropriate services and a homelessness strategy which requires greater co-ordination of service delivery across relevant public bodies could deliver greater benefits for this marginalized population.

The Trust’s specific comments relate to equality aspects in the main.

In terms of the proposals clause 1 requires the Housing Executive to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy every 5 years and that the Regional Agency for Public Health and Social Well-being and the Regional Health and Social Care Board are to assist with the formulation of the strategy. Public Authorities in keeping with their S75 obligations will need to screen the Strategy and where necessary and appropriate subject it to a full EQIA and a period of formal consultation with those directly affected and those with a legitimate interest in the matter.

Clauses 3&4- Eligibility for Housing Assistance & Power for the Dept. to Prescribe a Form of Advice and Assistance

The strategy itself would obviously need to consider the changing demographic profile of NI and those who experience homelessness. For example, there are particular issues facing Migrant Workers a case in point being - Oksana Sukhanova a young Ukranian woman on a work permit who lost her job, tied accommodation and legal status back in December 2004. As a result she had no entitlement to housing or social security support and after 10 days in a local hotel she ended up sleeping rough, contracting frostbite and had to have her legs amputated from below the knee. If this young woman had sought help from the NIHE or the Social Security Agency her need could not have been effectively and lawfully met by either organisation. The HPSS NI Order 1972 has offered vital support albeit limited emergency support to MW in this regard. Other Migrant Workers have not been able to access support and have ended up sleeping rough on the streets. Access to financial and other support is piecemeal and inconsistent. Many migrant workers losing a job have little or no savings so even a temporary interruption in employment can have devastating consequences. In the case of domestic abuse the situation of MW women is further compounded by the fact that they are unable to leave a partner, as they themselves would become undocumented and ineligible for support, meaning that rights are not conferred equally on women and men. Woman’s Aid have had to provide refuge for such women but have limited funding to sustain this. Although destitute children are cared for by the state, their mothers are left without support.

Five years on from Oskanan’s case we cannot be confident a similar tragedy could not occur. When MW become undocumented, mostly due to circumstances beyond their control, this makes individuals and their families vulnerable to exploitation and abuse and being ineligible for social support, undermines health, well-being, family and financial security. While the expectation is that undocumented workers should return home, the reality is that the majority are not in a financial position to be able to return.

The Housing Bill may not be able to make a significant impact in this area as it would require further legislative changes in terms of UK Border Agency Immigration Law e.g. such as a repeal of the Workers Registration Scheme which STEP has highlighted as presenting unnecessary suffering upon vulnerable MW due to imposition of this scheme (which will not happen before 2011 for A8 and 2013 for A2 nationals) . Nonetheless a NIHE Homelessness strategy would need to reflect the reality of the situation in NI - MW is one strand.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Gillian Rankin
Director of Older Peoples Services and Primary Care
Tel: 38-613979/3957

Email: gillian.rankin@southerntrust.hscni.net
karen.taylor@southerntrust.hscni.net

South Tyrone Empowerment Programme

Submission by the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme on the Housing (Amendment) Bill 2009
Committee Stage – August 2009

Introduction

This submission by the South Tyrone Empowerment Programme (STEP) is based on the experience of working with vulnerable people in the community. Based in Dungannon, STEP provides support and guidance to 150-200 people per month, the majority of whom are migrant workers and their families.

The comments refer to the proposals in the Housing (Amendment) Bill 2009, introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 9 June 2009. This submission is to inform the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Migration, Housing and Homelessness

Article 39 of the Treaty Establishing the European Communities guarantees the right of mobility for workers. Directive 2004/38 reinforces this right and outlines the principles and rights of nationals of EU Member States to move freely between countries and to reside in other Member States. In 2004, however, eight of the ten countries joining the EU (A8)[1] had restrictions placed upon their citizens with regard to the free movement to the UK, followed by further restrictions for the two countries joining in 2007 (A2)[2].

Migrants take significant risks in moving to another country to find work, often incurring debt to do so. This leads to a lack of financial resources to find desirable accommodation and, if all does not go well, barriers to returning to the country of origin. This means that those who migrate live a precarious existence and are most vulnerable to change. Migrants have contributed significantly to the economic growth of the UK[3], Republic of Ireland[4] and Northern Ireland[5], but the economic downturn has affected migrants most, being the first to lose their jobs or working for agencies where a contract has been cancelled. Migrants are often accommodated in houses in multiple occupation (HMO) to keep costs low and the loss of employment often leads to the loss of accommodation, leading to homelessness.

Eligibility is a major concern for migrants. In the case of A8 migrants, the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) which bars them from benefits if they lose their employment before 52 weeks’ registered work is complete was extended in April 2009 to the maximum term of seven years from accession (2011)[6]. However, the decision was made on economic grounds alone on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. The advisory body for humanitarian issues, the Migration Impacts Forum, did not contribute to the process and its efficacy and even existence is under question. Therefore, without consideration of humanitarian aspects of the WRS, A8 migrants made destitute by the current economic recession are denied support. The myth of ‘circular migration’ or ‘buffer theory’ where migrants simply go home on an economic downturn has been shown to be unrealistic and historically incorrect[7].

Proposals in the Bill

The Bill makes proposals with regard to a homelessness strategy. This is welcomed however there is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead the way on the principle of inclusion and non-discrimination. While it is not within the competencies of the Northern Ireland Executive to challenge UK national rules on eligibility for social support, a commitment within the strategy to meet the needs of homeless people in this jurisdiction regardless of status or origin[8] would address destitution among the most vulnerable in our communities. Migrant workers pay tax and National Insurance just like any other worker, but are excluded from social support if they cease working, in the case of A8 migrants, within a year.

The numbers would be small in Northern Ireland, but the need is great. In any case, homeless A8 migrants would have to be supported from April 2011, so providing for this eventuality sooner would make little difference except to those migrants made destitute in the intervening period. The first five year strategy will have to take this change into account.

Guidelines for Scotland do not exclude A8 migrants from emergency accommodation[9] and it is proposed that Northern Ireland should take the same stance, extending the eligibility to A2 migrants, which would go some way to indicating the recent attacks on migrants in Belfast, Moygashel, Dungannon and Cookstown are not representative of attitudes within the Northern Ireland Executive. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive should therefore be empowered to provide assistance to all homeless people in this jurisdiction on the basis of need, regardless of status or origin.

The current housing allocation regulations exclude persons from abroad from social housing allocation if their sole grounds for residence is as a jobseeker. This is contrary to the spirit of Article 39 of the EC Treaty and EU Directive 2004/38/EC and therefore Statutory Rule 2006 No 397[10] (Article 4 (1) (b)) should be amended to remove this restriction.

The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988[11] excludes certain people subject to immigration control or without the right to reside support in the event of homelessness. The legislation was flawed in that, where there is a mixture within a family persons eligible and ineligible for social support and those with priority need are deemed ineligible, support is refused, which was challenged in case law[12] as being contrary to the Human Rights Act[13]. The legislation was amended to address this anomaly[14] but there are limitations to provision, such as having temporary accommodation in the private rented sector, to which contributions have to be made, leading to potential hardship. This has to be amended to give full entitlement.

The Bill also proposes to change the rules on houses in multiple occupation (HMO) which will have the effect of reducing the total number. HMOs carry additional safeguards for tenants and reducing the number will adversely affect protections for certain groups who predominate in such accommodation, including migrants[15]. While the proposals with regard to family members appear sensible, any other narrowing of the definition will reduce further the protections for migrants who are already vulnerable and marginalised. Rather than a technical change, the new definition would have impacts that would need to be more fully investigated and consulted upon before being considered for legislation.

STEP Recommendations

It is recommended that the Bill be amended as follows:

• The homelessness strategy will support all homeless people in the jurisdiction regardless of status or origin
• Statutory Rule 2006 No 397 (Article 4 (1) (b)) will be amended to grant access to social housing on the basis of being a job-seeker
• Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (Article 124(5)) will be amended to show that where eligibility differs within a family, it will be treated as a single unit with priority need addressed regardless of eligibility, with same entitlement as any family in the same position
• The HMO definition will remain as “a house occupied by two or more qualifying persons, being persons who are not all members of the same family", but extending family members to uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces

South Tyrone Empowerment Programme
Unit T7 Dungannon Business Park
2 Coalisland Road
Dungannon,
Co Tyrone
BT71 6JT

+44 2887 750211
info@stepni.org
www.stepni.org

[1] Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia.

[2] Romania and Bulgaria.

[3] Exell, R (2007), The Economics of Migration: Managing the Impacts, London: Trades Union Congress.

[4] Migrant Rights Centre Ireland press release 25 November 2008.

[5] Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council (2008), Dungannon and South Tyrone: A Demographic and Labour Market Profile of the New Migrant Population, Dungannon: Dungannon and South Tyrone Borough Council.

[6] Migration Advisory Committee (2009), Review of the UK’s transitional measures for nationals of members states that acceded to the European Union in 2004, Croydon: Migration Advisory Committee.

[7] See, for example, Trinity College Dublin-Trinity Immigration Initiative (2008) MCA Newsletter No.1: Migration and Recession. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin; or Dobson, J, Latham, A and Salt, J (2009), On the Move? Labour Migration in Times of Recession: What Can We Learn from the Past?, London: Policy Network.

[8] Article 2 of the Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights forbids discrimination on the basis of national origin and Articles 12 and 13 guarantee an adequate standard of living and the highest attainable standard of health.

[9] Scottish Executive (2005), Code of Guidance on Homelessness, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Chapter 13.

[10] The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.

[11] Article 7A as amended by Article 137 of the Housing (NI) Order 2003

[12] Morris v Westminster City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1184 (14.10.05).

[13] Article 8 – right to a family life.

[14] The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

[15] 474 of the 10254 HMOs were classified as migrant worker accommodation in August 2008, Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2009), Black and Minority Ethnic and Migrant Worker Mapping Update, Belfast: NIHE, p.103.

Supporting Communities NI

Supporting Communities NI
34-36 Henry Street,
Ballymena,
BT42 3AH
02825645676
info@supportingcommunitiesni.org

9th July 2009

Dear Sir/ Madam

Housing (Amendment) Bill

I refer to the above and am pleased to enclose the observations and comments from the Supporting Communities NI, (formerly N.I. Tenants Action Project) staff team following staff discussions and consideration with representatives from community groups involved in the Housing Community Network.

Supporting Communities NI is an independent charitable organisation which champions community participation by developing groups, supporting active citizenship and building cohesive communities; the Housing Community Network is a unique structure which was formed in response to the need for housing related policies to be developed both with and on behalf of community groups working in partnership with N.I. Housing Executive and Supporting Communities NI.

The most significant part of the workload of Supporting Communities NI involves working with and developing locally based multi- and inter-agency partnerships which have housing services, community participation and regeneration and related matters at their core. These observations and comments in response to the discussion document are supported by extensive experience in working with community groups by Supporting Communities NI staff over many years and, where it has been possible, following discussion with voluntary committee members.

As N.I.T.A.P., we participated in the previous discussions on a proposed strategy for the inclusion of homeless people in Northern Ireland and we welcome the publication of this Bill and the consultation currently being undertaken by the Social Development Committee. By way of introduction to this response, we would ask that the Committee notes the great interest that local community representatives have in the issues raised in the Bill. It is unfortunate that the timing of the publication and the short timescale of the consultation makes it difficult to have a full and proper consultation with local groups through the Housing Community Network. Nevertheless the following observations are made in support of the passage of the appropriate measures to strengthen and enhance existing legislation.

Clause 1: Homelessness Strategy

This clause is strongly supported and S.C.N.I. recognises that the Housing Executive has made significant progress to date; we would add, however, that the Housing Executive should also be encouraged to ensure the widest consultation with voluntary and community sector interests in the strategy process and not just those with a service delivery responsibility.

Clause 2: Duty of the Housing Executive to provide advice

We fully support the duty to provide advice but feel the clause must be supported by specific guidance on the nature, location and accessibility, including language etc. of advice services and that the Department will give assurances that these services will be appropriately resourced and supported.

Clause 3: Eligibility for housing assistance

It is right and proper that any person deemed ineligible for assistance under Article 7 of the 1988 Order is informed of the decision and of the reason(s) for that decision.

Clause 4: Power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance

We are of the view that it is important that the Department should be enabled to provide a Statutory Code of Guidance to ensure that there is authoritative and independent guidance which applies across all Housing Executive Districts and provides for clarity and transparency in assessment and decision-making in homeless cases.

Clause 5: Reviews of decisions in relation to Homelessness

We fully support the inclusion of a right to review of homeless decisions with a further right to appeal to county court.

Clause 6: Power to obtain information from housing associations

We recognise that the Department has a regulatory function and may require the powers in this clause.

Clause 7: Restriction on enquiry into affairs of registered housing associations by persons associated with the Housing Executive

We recognise the view that conflicts of interest may arise in such cases.

Clause 8: Department’s powers in cases of misconduct or mismanagement of registered housing associations

Whilst supporting such a clause, we would also expect the Department to issue clear guidance as to which circumstances would warrant such intervention and what constitutes a ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that there has been misconduct or mismanagement.

Clause 9: Abandonment of introductory tenancies

To the extent that this brings introductory tenancies into line with secure tenancies, this is not a contentious clause; however the Guidance should ensure that introductory tenants have the same rights, particularly that of appeal, as secure tenants.

Clause 10: Anti-social behaviour; Housing Executive’s policies and procedures

It is essential that the policies and procedures, including definition and scope of responsibility, of the Housing Executive for dealing with anti-social behaviour are published and accessible. The Housing Executive should also ensure that tenants, communities and stakeholders have the opportunity to play a role in and influence the review of any such policies; this should be expressed in any future guidance.

Clause 11: Grounds for possession; nuisance or annoyance to neighbours etc.

The clarification involving where an offence has been committed is welcomed.

Clause 12: Increase in Housing Council representation on Housing Executive Board

Whilst the increased representation from local councillors is to be welcomed, at the time of making this change we would view it timely to include appointment of tenants to the Board of the Housing Executive. Indeed, the Housing Community Network is an ideal mechanism with which to facilitate the inclusion of tenants on the Board and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the Committee.

Clause 13: Qualifying shorthold tenancies.

We have no objections to this clause.

Clause 14: Definition of ‘house in multiple occupation’

We would have concern about what is seen as a weakening of the legislation governing houses in multiple occupation. We recognise that the law must reflect the diverse and changing nature of family and household structure; however, we would guard against a mechanism which in seeking to achieve this recognition would lead to a reduction in the number of properties required to comply with H.M.O. standards that would otherwise be expected to do so.

Clauses 15-19:

No objections.

I hope you find these comments supportive and useful.

Yours faithfully,
FOR SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES NI

Murray Watt
Policy and Information Officer

Western Health and Social Care Trust

Ref: EW.00219/JMcM

4 August 2009

Peter McCallion
Committee Clerk
Northern Ireland Assembly
Committee for Social Development
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Dear Mr McCallion

Housing (Amendment) Bill

The Western Health and Social Care Trust welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Housing Amendment Bill.

The Trust particularly welcomes the proposal at Clause I to formulate and publish a homelessness strategy and the opportunity to participate in the development of this. The Trust currently works in partnership with NIHC in respect of the homelessness challenges which face some of our population/service users in the area of advice and guidance. We therefore support Clause 2, 3 and 4 which deal specifically with these issues.

Clause 5 gives applicants the right to request a review of decisions with a clear right of appeal in respect of associated decision making procedures. The Trust as advocates for our client groups feel this proves an appropriate appeal route for perceived unfair decisions.

The Monitoring Clauses of 6, 7 and 8 provides increased opportunity for monitoring and performance management and is therefore welcomed and supported by the Trust.

The Trust welcomes the proposals and Clause 10 and 11 to publicise polices and procedures.

The remaining clauses propose alteration to the technical arrangements of tenancies and as such the Trust is not in a position to provide meaningful comments in these areas.

In conclusion, the Trust welcomes the changes outlined in the draft Bill, which we feel will have a positive impact on service users.

Yours sincerely

Elaine Way (Mrs)
Chief Executive

Copy Mr Trevor Millar, Director of Adult Mental Health & Disability Services
Paula Cunningham, Head of Service Planning

Appendix 4

DSD Submissions

Department for Social Development Submissions

Correspondence from DSD 8 March 2009

Correspondence from DSD 29 September 2009

Correspondence from DSD 14 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD 16 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD 20 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD 27 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD 31 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD 2 November 2009

Correspondence from DSD
8 March 2009

Correspondence from DSD
29 September 2009

Mr Peter McCallion
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

29 September 2009

Dear Peter,

Housing (Amendment) Bill

1. You wrote to John Ball on 21 September 2009 requesting responses from the Department on the following issues arising from Committee scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill on 17 September.

Extension of Homelessness Support

2. The Committee has requested information on the Housing Executive’s obligations in respect of the provision of homelessness advice and support and the implications of extending such advice and support to all applicants regardless of their immigration status.

3. Article 7A(1) of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 provides that persons from abroad are not eligible to be provided with housing assistance under the homelessness legislation if they are persons subject to immigration control who are already ineligible for such assistance by virtue of section 119 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 or if they are other persons from abroad who are ineligible by virtue of regulations made under Article 7A(2). In this context, “housing assistance" means accommodation. Guidance issued to the Housing Executive by the Department emphasises that free advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness should be available to all, whether they are “eligible persons" or not.

4. Clause 2 of the Bill enshrines this position in legislation as a new duty on the Housing Executive to ensure that free advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available to all people in Northern Ireland. This duty would apply regardless of a person’s immigration status. This does not offer new entitlements to any particular description of persons and is compatible with immigration legislation. It should also be understood that homelessness “support" or “assistance", where it takes the form of accommodation, is only available to eligible persons and that the Assembly would have no power to extend such support or assistance to persons who are not eligible for it by virtue of immigration legislation.

The Homelessness Strategy

5. In relation to clause 1, the Committee has requested the Department’s views on:

(a) suggested amendments to the new Article 6A to be inserted in the Housing (NI) Order 1988, and

(b) the suggestion that the review period for the Housing Executive’s homelessness strategy should be three years rather than five.

6. It is understood that witnesses felt that the existing wording of the proposed Article 6A would not place a clear obligation on the Housing Executive to produce a homelessness strategy. The Office of the Legislative Counsel, which has drafted the Bill on the Department’s behalf, has assured the Department that the new Article 6A would in fact have the desired effect (while new Article 6A(1) gives the appearance of being couched in terms of a discretionary power, new Article 6A(3) and (4) would require the Housing Executive to exercise its power to produce a homelessness strategy). An amendment of the kind envisaged by the witnesses would, therefore, be entirely presentational.

7. The issue of the period covered by the statutory homelessness strategy was also raised in the second stage debate on the Bill. At that time, the Minister said that she would look at this issue. The Department has subsequently had discussions with the Housing Executive on this matter. The Executive’s view is that a three year strategy would not be long enough for the purposes of medium to long term planning. However, the Housing Executive would take account of the 3-year cycle of the comprehensive spending review when drawing up the strategy and the strategy action plan would be reviewed on an annual basis.

Introductory Tenancies

8. In relation to clause 9, a witness asked if it was intended to amend the rights of secure tenants and the Committee has requested clarification.

9. Clause 9 would insert new Articles 19A and 19B in the Housing (NI) Order 2003 to enable landlords to regain possession of accommodation abandoned by introductory tenants, without the requirement to seek a court order. For the purposes of appeals against termination of introductory tenancies on the grounds of abandonment, it is necessary to define “suitable accommodation". New Article 19B(5) therefore provides for suitability to be defined in terms of Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Housing (NI) Order 1983. Because the definition in the 1983 Order specifically refers to secure tenancies, it is necessary to remove the word “secure" from the definition to ensure that the definition applies to secure and introductory tenancies. New Article 19B(4)(b) (not Article 19A(4)(b)) therefore provides for the omission of the word “secure" from paragraph 2(e) and (f) in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the 1983 Order. This does not affect the rights of secure tenants.

Priority Need for homeless 16-17 year-olds

10. The Committee has requested an update on the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) Order (NI) 2009. The order is subject to affirmative resolution and, therefore, must be debated on the floor of the Assembly. Because of this, Executive approval is required before the order can be introduced in the Assembly. A policy memorandum in respect of this proposed statutory rule is currently awaiting clearance by First Minister prior to submission to the Executive for approval.

Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) Steering Group

11. Witnesses suggested that the Steering Group should have a statutory role in the development and implementation of the Housing Executive’s homelessness strategy. Given that the Steering Group is not a statutory body, it follows that the Group has no statutory role. However, a number of the organisations which would be required to take the strategy into account in the exercise of their functions are represented on the Steering Group. While the Department has not yet taken a decision on the future of the Steering Group, it is likely that the Group will continue to meet in some form and the Housing Executive would be keen to involve the Group, or a successor body, in the development and implementation of the homelessness strategy.

Anti-Social Behaviour Policies of Housing Associations

12. Witnesses suggested that the Bill should be amended to require registered housing associations to publish their policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour, as the Housing Executive would be required to do.

13. The Department agrees that housing associations should publish their policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour. However, it is not customary to specify the duties of housing associations in legislation. As the statutory regulator of housing associations, the Department has power under Article 11 of the Housing (NI) Order 1992 to issue guidance to registered housing associations and it is intended to issue guidance on the publication of policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour.

14. We look forward to briefing the Committee on 8 October.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Martin
Head of Housing Bill Team
Housing Division, DSD

cc: Michael Sands
John Ball
Billy Crawford
Rory Muldrew
Stephen Baird

Correspondence from DSD
14 October 2009

Mr Peter McCallion
Your Ref: CSD/009/2008/3/CMcC
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST

BT4 3XX

14 October 2009

Dear Peter,

Housing (Amendment) Bill

1. You wrote to John Ball on 30th September 2009 requesting responses from the Department on the following issues arising from Committee scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill on 24th September.

Statutory homelessness strategy

2. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal to add further organisations to the list of bodies required to take the Housing Executive’s homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

3. The Northern Ireland Prison Service is already specified within the Bill, under the auspices of the Secretary of State. However, given the introduction of the Department of Justice Bill into the Assembly, it would now seem appropriate to add the Northern Ireland Prison Service in its own right.

4. All relevant government departments are already listed.

5. If some evidence of councils’ involvement in homelessness issues could be provided, the Department would give further consideration to that proposal.

6. The means by which the bodies listed in clause 1 meet the objectives of the homelessness strategy is a matter for the bodies concerned and their existing systems of accountability. It is the Department’s view that it would not be appropriate to specify detailed reporting mechanisms etc. in primary legislation.

Substitution of “person" for “applicant"

7. The Committee has requested clarification on the proposal to substitute the word “person" for “applicant" in existing legislation dealing with eligibility for homelessness legislation.

8. I should explain that Article 7 of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 provides that “an applicant" is a person who has applied for accommodation or housing assistance. Article 7A(5) only permits the Executive to treat “applicants" as ineligible for homelessness assistance and the Housing Executive takes the view that the courts would consider that a person ceases to be “an applicant" when the Executive has completed its assessment of their circumstances.

9. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that Housing Executive can treat an individual as ineligible for homelessness assistance where evidence of serious anti-social behaviour by that person emerges after the Executive has completed its assessment of the individual’s housing circumstances.

Eligibility: spent convictions

10. The Committee is concerned that applicants for homelessness assistance should not be treated as ineligible on the basis of a spent conviction and has suggested that the Housing Executive should take account of ex-offenders’ efforts to address their behaviour. In fact, these issues are dealt with in guidance issued to the Housing Executive by the Department. The guidance states that:

Given that the Executive has the power to treat applicants as ineligible for housing accommodation by reason of their unacceptable behaviour, the Executive should not apply blanket exclusions against particular classes of applicant, such as ex-prisoners, where individual cases could be considered on their own merits under Article 22A(6).

It must be emphasised that an applicant’s suitability to be a tenant should not be assessed on the basis of past conduct alone. The Executive must have regard to the circumstances at the time the application is considered. For example, it would not be appropriate to treat an applicant as ineligible because of a past conviction if he/she has subsequently led a blameless existence.

Where an applicant has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour but is working with a helping agency (for example, PBNI or a CAT team) in an attempt to address that behaviour, the Executive should take account of the agency’s views in considering whether the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant.

(Extract from Guidance on the anti-social behaviour provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and the Anti-Social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (as amended by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2005) issued by the Department for Social Development to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive on 30th April 2008.)

Advice and assistance

11. The Committee has emphasised the importance of translation services, has suggested that the Bill should specify minimum standards of assistance and that advice and assistance provided to homeless people by the Housing Executive should be subject to consultation and review.

12. The Housing Executive’s Equality Unit has a translation service available to all staff with minor controls and a central budget. Customers are informed of the availability of interpreter services through posters in every office, by staff and in many documents. Every piece of correspondence issued by the Executive contains a “translated slip" offering language and translation support.

13. “Minimum standards" of assistance to be provided to homeless people (which could reasonably include referral mechanisms) where the Housing Executive has a statutory duty to provide advice and assistance will be specified in regulations which will be subject to consultation.

Right to review

14. The Committee has asked for the Department’s view on a proposal that the period for making an application for review/appeal should be one calendar month rather than 21 days as currently proposed. The views of the Housing Executive and the Northern Ireland Court Service will be taken on this proposal.

Emergency Fund

15. The Committee has asked for the Department’s view on a proposal to develop a fund that would enable voluntary organisations to help non-UK nationals to access accommodation and advice.

16. Given that certain descriptions of persons from abroad are not eligible for homelessness assistance, it may not be lawful for government bodies to contribute to such a fund. If this proves to be the case, it would not be possible to make provision in the Bill which would allow government bodies to make such contributions, given that the legislation which deals with the eligibility of persons from abroad for homelessness assistance is a UK-wide Act and that the housing entitlement of non-UK nationals is an excepted matter.

17. It should, however, be noted that free advice about homelessness is available to all, regardless of nationality.

Inter-agency protocols

18. The Committee has asked for the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should make provision in respect of the protocol between the Housing Executive and the Prison Service. Such protocols are, by their nature, non-statutory arrangements and it would not be appropriate to legislate in this area. The Department can provide a copy of the protocol between the Housing Executive, the Prison Service and other relevant organisations if that would be helpful.

Rent Guarantee Scheme

19. The Committee has asked for the Department’s view on a proposal by one witness that Rent Guarantee Schemes should be “referenced" in the Bill. The purpose of a Bill is, of course, to set out legislation to be enacted by the Assembly and, while there may be a role for Rent Guarantee Schemes in Northern Ireland, such Schemes can be introduced administratively and do not require legislation.

Equality Impact Assessment

20. The Committee has asked if the Department can confirm that an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) was carried out in compliance with the Equality Commission’s guidelines.

21. Good practice guidance outlines that a public authority should consider subjecting a policy to an EQIA when a potential differential impact on the Section 75 categories is identified.

22. An equality screening of the Bill’s provisions was completed in May 2008 and found no evidence of any differential impacts. Officials, however, completed an EQIA proforma in June 2008 with the aim of aiding Assembly scrutiny of the Bill. This document did not follow the full seven steps of an EQIA as again no evidence emerged to suggest the policy had any impact on equality of opportunity.

23. We have recently engaged with the Equality Commission over this matter. They have advised that the Department would have been better to have let the screening exercise stand, since it had not identified any differential impacts, rather than go on to complete a partial EQIA.

24. The Department recently revisited the screening exercise to ensure that it had fully considered all the evidence. This examination confirmed that EQIA was unnecessary. A copy of the latest equality screening document, which has been copied to the Equality Commission, is attached (at Appendix 1) for your information.

Delegated powers memorandum

25. You also requested a copy of the delegated powers memorandum for the Bill. Please find this attached at Appendix 2.

26. Michael Sands, Stephen Baird and I look forward to briefing the Committee on 15 October.

Yours sincerely

STEPHEN MARTIN

cc: Michael Sands
John Ball
Billy Crawford
Rory Muldrew
Stephen Baird

Appendix 1

Department’s equality screening document of Housing (Amendment) Bill

Appendix 2

Delegated Powers Memorandum: Housing (Amendment) Bill

Introduction

1. Purpose of the Housing (Amendment) Bill is to enhance existing housing legislation in a number of areas and to refresh the existing legislative framework. No new policies are proposed for enactment in the Bill.

2. The provisions of the Bill fall into the following categories:

(i) Recommendations emerging from earlier consultation.

(ii) Amendments aimed at clarifying existing legislation.

(iii) Amendments necessary as a result of judicial review.

(iv) Technical amendments.

3. The Bill contains powers for the Department to make regulations to prescribe:

(i) the kind of advice and assistance to be provided by the Housing Executive to homeless people;

(ii). the procedure to be followed by the Housing Executive in connection with the statutory right to review of homelessness decisions;

(iii). the form of notice to be served on an introductory tenant by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations where the tenancy appears to have been abandoned; and

(iv). the procedures to be followed by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in dealing with property found in introductory tenancies which have been re-possessed.

Details of these powers are set out below.

4. Power of the Department to Prescribe form of Advice and Assistance

(a) Purpose of provision

The purpose of this provision is to enable the Department to prescribe by regulations the kind of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive is required to provide to homeless people. The background is as follows:

The Housing Executive has certain duties to homeless persons under the Housing (NI) Order 1988 including a duty to provide advice and such assistance as it considers appropriate in the following circumstances:

• where the Housing Executive is satisfied that a homeless applicant has a ‘priority need’ for accommodation (i.e. the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household is particularly vulnerable) but became homeless ‘intentionally’ (Article 10(3));
• where the Executive is not satisfied that a homeless applicant has a priority need (Article 10(4)); and
• where the Executive is not satisfied that a person who is threatened with homelessness has a priority need, or is satisfied that such a person has a priority need but is threatened with homelessness ‘intentionally’ (Article 11(3)).

Clause 4 of the Bill would amend Articles 10 and 11 of the Housing (NI) Order 1988 to enable the Department to prescribe by regulations the kind of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive is required to provide under those Articles.

(b) Why power has been delegated

An inter-departmental, cross-sectoral Working Group established by the Department to make proposals for promoting the social inclusion of homeless people recommended that the Department should take a power to prescribe the kind of advice and assistance that the Housing Executive is required to provide to homeless people, based on the power in Scottish legislation to prescribe advice and assistance to be provided to homeless people by Scottish local authorities (Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, section 31 (as amended by section 3(3)(b) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001) and section 32 (as amended by section 3(4)(a) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001). The Working Group’s findings were published for consultation and the subsequent strategy document “Including the Homeless" recommends that the Department should have a statutory power to regulate the form of advice provided by the Housing Executive.

(c) Assembly control

Negative resolution.

(d) Reasons for choice of assembly control

The Working Group recommended as a suitable model the Homeless Persons Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Regulations 2002, made under section 31 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (as amended). The form of parliamentary control for the Scottish regulations is negative resolution. Given this, the Department took the view that a similar form of Assembly control would be appropriate and that the Assembly, like the Scottish Parliament, would not wish to debate the detail of the regulations.

5. Power of the Department to make Provision as to the Procedure to be followed in connection with review of Homelessness Decisions.

(a) Purpose of provision

The purpose of this provision is to enable the Department to make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with reviews of decisions on applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation. The background is as follows:

As mentioned above, the Housing Executive has certain duties to homeless persons under the Housing (NI) Order 1988. Clause 5 of the Bill would insert a new Article 11A in the Housing (NI) Order 1988 to provide for a statutory right to review of decisions taken by the Housing Executive on applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation. Complementary to this provision, clause 5 would also insert a new Article 11B in the 1988 Order to enable the Department to make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with such reviews.

The new Article 11B would also enable the Department to make provision by regulations as to the period within which the review must be carried out and notice given of the decision. It is envisaged that these matters would be dealt with in the regulations setting out the procedure to be followed in connection with a review

(b) Why power has been delegated

The inter-departmental, cross-sectoral Working Group established by the Department to make proposals for promoting the social inclusion of homeless people noted that there is a statutory right to review of homelessness decisions in England, Scotland and Wales and recommended that a similar entitlement should be introduced in Northern Ireland. Following public consultation on the Working Group’s findings, the recommendation that the right to review of homelessness decisions should be placed on a statutory basis was published in the strategy document “Including the Homeless". In line with the Working Group’s recommendation, the Department instructed Legislative Counsel to model the relevant draft provision on sections 202-204 of the Housing Act 1996. Section 203 of that Act enables the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the procedure to be followed by local housing authorities in connection with a review of a homelessness decision and similar provision has therefore been drafted for Northern Ireland.

(c) Assembly control

Negative resolution.

(d) Reasons for choice of assembly control

The model for the regulations are the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, made under the Housing Act 1996 (sections 202-204). The form of parliamentary control for the English regulations is negative resolution. Given this, the Department took the view that a similar form of Assembly control would be appropriate and that the Assembly, like the UK Parliament, would not wish to debate the detail of the regulations.

6. Introductory Tenancies: Form of Notice.

(a) Purpose of provision

The purpose of this provision is to enable the Department to prescribe the form of notice to be served on introductory tenants by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations where the landlord intends to regain possession of the accommodation on the basis that it has been abandoned by the tenant. The background is as follows:

New Housing Executive and registered housing associations are allocated on an “introductory" basis (an introductory tenancy lasts for a trial period of 1 year before it automatically becomes a secure tenancy). Introductory and secure tenancies can only be terminated by order of the court. However, while the court will only grant possession of a secure tenancy if the landlord can satisfy the court that there are statutory grounds for possession, the court may grant possession of an introductory tenancy without requiring the landlord to provide any evidence of grounds.

Where accommodation let under a secure tenancy appears to have been abandoned by the tenant, Article 41 of the Housing (NI) Order 1983 allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy without a court order, to enter and take possession of the accommodation, and to deal with any property found on the premises. However, there is no provision for repossessing an introductory tenancy without a court order. This means that, where accommodation let under an introductory tenancy has been abandoned by the tenant, the landlord cannot regain possession without incurring the delay and expense involved in obtaining an order for possession, nor can the landlord lawfully dispose of any property found on the premises. Clause 9 of the Bill would therefore insert a new Article 19A in the Housing (NI) Order 2003 to enable the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to regain possession of accommodation let under introductory tenancies which appear to have been abandoned by the tenant. A landlord who intends to regain possession in these circumstances would be required to serve on the tenant a notice in a form prescribed in regulations made by the Department.

(b) Why power has been delegated

This clause aims to make provision in respect of abandoned introductory tenancies which mirrors existing provision in respect of abandoned secure tenancies. The existing provision requires landlords who wish to take possession of abandoned secure tenancies to serve on the tenant a notice in prescribed form.

(c) Assembly control

Negative resolution.

(d) Reasons for choice of assembly control

The content of the regulations which would prescribe the form of notice to be served on introductory tenants is in fact set out in some detail in clause 9 of the Bill. The actual regulations would have little to add, other than to prescribe the layout of the form to be used by the landlord, which would be similar to the layout of the existing form prescribed for use in respect of abandoned secure tenancies (the Secure Tenancies (Notice) Regulations (NI) 1983 as amended by the Secure Tenancies (Notice) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 2003). The Department took the view that the Assembly would not wish to debate the layout of the form, given that it will have an opportunity to consider the actual substance of this regulatory power.

7. Introductory Tenancies: Disposal of Property.

(a) Purpose of provision

The purpose of this provision is to enable the Department to make an order setting out the procedures to be followed by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in dealing with property found in introductory tenancies which have been re-possessed on the basis that they have been abandoned by the tenant. The background is as follows:

As mentioned above, it is proposed to enable the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to regain possession of accommodation let under introductory tenancies which appear to have been abandoned by the tenant, the draft provision being based on existing provision in Article 41 of the Housing (NI) Order 1983 which operates in respect of secure tenancies. Any property found in rented accommodation abandoned by the tenant remains the property of the former tenant and, in the absence of any legal authority to do otherwise, would have to be stored by the landlord until such time as the owner reclaims it. The proposed order-making power would ensure that the landlord can recover storage costs from a former tenant who wishes to reclaim their possessions or, where the former tenant does not reclaim the property within a reasonable period, to dispose of it.

(b) Why power has been delegated

This clause aims to make provision in respect of abandoned introductory tenancies which mirrors existing provision in respect of abandoned secure tenancies. The existing provision enables the Department to make an order setting out the procedures to be followed by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in dealing with property found in secure tenancies which have been re-possessed on the basis that they have been abandoned by the tenant.

(c) Assembly control

Negative resolution.

(d) Reasons for choice of assembly control

The broad content of the order which would set out procedures to be followed by the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in dealing with property found in secure tenancies is in fact set out in clause 9 of the Bill. The actual order would be similar to the layout of the existing order in respect of abandoned secure tenancies (the Secure Tenancies (Abandoned Property) Order (NI) 1983). The Department took the view that the Assembly would not wish to debate the detail of the proposed order, given that it will have an opportunity to consider the broad substance of this regulatory power.

Housing (Amendment) Bill Completed Equality Impact Assessment 2009

Index

1. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

2. Executive Summary

3. Introduction

4. Consultation

5. Aims of Policy

6. Policy details

7. Responsibility for Developing and Delivering Policy

8. Consideration of Available Data and Research

9. Assessment of Impacts

1. Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998

1.1 Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act") requires public authorities, in carrying out their functions relating to Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity between:

• persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation;
• men and women generally;
• persons with a disability and persons without; and
• persons with dependants and persons without.

1.2 Section 75 also requires public authorities to have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

1.3 The primary function of an Equality Impact Assessment is to assess the extent of differential impact of policy on section 75 categories, and groups within those categories, and to determine whether that impact is adverse, i.e. whether the policy negatively affects people within one or more of the equality groups.

1.4 In accordance with Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act, the Department for Social Development has produced an Equality Scheme which explains how it will implement its obligations under section 75. A copy of the Scheme, which was approved by the Equality Commission on 15 March 2001, is available on the Department’s website at http://www.dsdni.gov.uk . Copies are also available in printed form and, on request, in alternative formats such as Braille, large print, disc, audio cassette and in minority languages to meet the needs of those who are not fluent in English from Departmental headquarters through a request to:

The Office of the Permanent Secretary
5th Floor
Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Ormeau Road
Belfast
BT7 2JB

2. Executive Summary

3. Introduction

3.1 On 26 February 2008 the Minister for Social Development announced in the Assembly a wide range of measures to tackle the housing crisis and a new Housing Agenda. Some of those measures will be progressed administratively while others will require new primary legislation when the policies have been fully developed and have been subject to consultation.

3.2 The issues in this Bill will enhance the existing housing legislative framework in a number of areas and refresh the existing legislative framework. No new policies are proposed for enactment in this Bill, the provisions of which fall into the following categories:

(i) Recommendations emerging from earlier consultation.

(ii) Amendments aimed at clarifying existing legislation.

(iii) Amendments necessary as a result of judicial review.

(iv) Technical amendments.

4. Consultation

Homelessness

4.1 In 2004, the Department set up an inter-departmental, cross-sectoral working group to consider homelessness in the context of promoting social inclusion. In particular, the working group’s remit was to consider ways of preventing homelessness and of ensuring that homeless people could access the services that they are entitled to. A draft report of the working group’s findings was published for consultation in 2004/2005 and a final strategy document Including the Homeless was published in 2007. The cross-sectoral steering group set up to take forward the Strategy made a number of recommendations and those requiring legislation are among the proposals covered by this Impact Assessment.

Housing Association provisions

4.2 The Department met with the Chair of the Federation of Housing Associations to discuss the proposals affecting Housing Associations. The proposals were then discussed at a meeting of the Federation where Members agreed not to oppose the measures.

5. Aims of the Policy

5.1 The current legislation needs to be amended to give effect to the (mainly minor) revisions which are required. A number of different policy areas are touched on by these proposals and the aims of the collective and individual policies are set out below.

5.2 The aims of the provisions relating to homelessness are to:

• require the Housing Executive to produce a homelessness strategy every five years, and certain other bodies to participate in the development of the strategy and to take the strategy into account in the exercise of their functions;
• ensure that advice about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness is available free of charge, and to enable the Department to prescribe the kind of advice and assistance to be provided to homeless people;
• enable the Housing Executive to treat individuals who have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour as ineligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation where evidence of such behaviour does not come to light until the Executive has completed its inquiries into their housing circumstances.
• require the Housing Executive to notify persons found to be “ineligible" for assistance under the homelessness legislation of the grounds for the decision.
• give applicants a statutory right to a review of decisions made by the Housing Executive, with a subsequent right of appeal to the county court on matters of law.

5.3 The aims of the provisions relating specifically to housing associations are to

• require associations to produce all relevant documentation to the Department during an inspection.
• prevent a former or current employee of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from appointment as a person to conduct an Inquiry into the affairs of a registered housing association.
• empower the Department to take action to protect the interests of the tenants or the assets of the association if it is considered necessary.

5.4 The aim of the provision relating to introductory tenancies is to enable the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to regain possession of accommodation let under introductory tenancies where such accommodation has been abandoned by the tenant, and to deal with any property found on the premises.

5.5 The aims of the provisions relating to anti-social behaviour are to:

• require the Housing Executive to publish its policies and procedures for dealing with anti-social behaviour, and
• make the commission of any offence which involves the use of a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes a ground for possession of a Housing Executive or housing association tenancy and

5.6 The aim of the provision relating to the Northern Ireland Housing Council is to increase the number of statutory nominees to the Board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive from three to four.

5.7 The aim of the provision relating to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 is to enable registered housing associations to offer tenancies on a qualifying shorthold basis without being required to seek the Department’s permission to make a disposal of land.

5.8 The aim of the revised definition of House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) is to recognise that members of an extended family living under the same roof comprise a single household.

5.9 The aim of the provision relating to the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is to ensure that the legislation more accurately reflects the purpose of “notices of refusal" issued by district councils.

6. Policy details

Homelessness

6.1 A person or household is “homeless" if they have no accommodation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or it would be unreasonable to expect them to occupy their existing home for a particular reason. eg. a threat of violence.

6.2 The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a duty to ensure that eligible persons deemed to be unintentionally homeless and in priority need are re-housed. The Executive will provide such applicants with temporary accommodation and, ultimately, secure tenancies of Housing Executive or housing association housing. Other applicants who do not meet all the statutory criteria for re-housing may be provided with temporary accommodation and advice and assistance to enable them to obtain housing for themselves. The Housing Executive can provide financial and other forms of assistance to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness and works closely with Health and Social Services Boards, the Probation Service and registered housing associations.

6.3 Only eligible persons can apply for assistance under the homelessness legislation. Persons may be ineligible for assistance by virtue of their immigration status or if they have been guilty of unacceptable behaviour.

6.4 The “priority need" categories reflect the need to target resources on the most vulnerable people.

6.5 In 2004, the Department set up an inter-departmental, cross-sectoral working group to consider homelessness in the context of promoting social inclusion (“the PSI Homelessness Strategy"). In particular, the working group’s remit was to consider ways of preventing homelessness and of ensuring that homeless people can access the services that they are entitled to and are not excluded from the mainstream of society. A draft report of the working group’s findings was published for consultation in 2004/2005 and a final strategy document Including the Homeless was published in 2007.

6.6 The proposal to require the Housing Executive to publish its strategy for dealing with homelessness is based on a recommendation made by a steering group which has been set up to take the PSI Homelessness Strategy forward. The steering group made this recommendation on the basis that such a requirement would contribute to ensuring that homelessness continues to be a Government priority, and to the promotion of a multi-agency approach,

6.7 The PSI Homelessness Strategy also identified a need for legislation to ensure that:

• free advice about homelessness, in a form prescribed by the Department, is available from an independent provider, and
• applicants have a right to review of decisions made by the Housing Executive, with a right of appeal to the courts.

These proposals would bring Northern Ireland into line with other parts of the UK.

6.8 Existing legislation allows the Housing Executive to treat applicants for assistance under the homelessness legislation as ineligible for such assistance if, by reason of their unacceptable behaviour, they are not suitable persons to hold tenancies of social housing. Where evidence of such behaviour does not emerge until the Executive has completed its assessment of the individual’s housing circumstances, it could be argued that the person is no longer an “applicant" therefore cannot be treated as ineligible. That was not the intention when the legislation was drafted and it is therefore proposed that the legislation should be amended to refer to “persons" rather than “applicants" with a view to avoiding challenges based on a technicality.

6.9 The legislation which allows the Housing Executive to treat applicants for homelessness assistance as “ineligible" has a counterpart in the legislation covering the allocation of social housing which allows the Executive to treat persons who have applied for housing via the waiting list as ineligible for such accommodation by reason of their unacceptable behaviour. The Housing Selection Scheme allows the Housing Executive to treat waiting list applicants as ineligible at any stage of the allocation process.

6.10 Where a waiting list applicant has been found to be ineligible for an allocation of social housing, the Housing Executive is required under existing legislation to notify the individual concerned of the reason(s) for the decision. There is no such requirement in respect of persons found to be ineligible for homelessness assistance, which appears to be due to an oversight. It is therefore proposed that persons treated as ineligible for homelessness assistance should have the same right to be notified of the decision and the reason(s) for it as persons treated as ineligible for an allocation of social housing.

6.11 While the legislation which enables the Housing Executive to treat individuals as ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation via the waiting list is based on provision which applies in England and Wales, the legislation which enables the Executive to treat applicants for homelessness assistance as “ineligible" has no equivalent in England or Wales. This is because the homelessness legislation in England and Wales, unlike the homelessness legislation in Northern Ireland, does not provide a direct route into social housing.

Registered Housing Associations

6.12 The Department for Social Development is responsible for the funding, monitoring, regulating, and issuing of guidance and policy direction to registered housing associations.

6.13 Under Article 21 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 the Department has powers to monitor registered housing associations. One way in which this role is undertaken is by means of regular monitoring visits by the Department to check that the proper systems are in place to ensure the effective management of associations’ affairs by its committee, officers and employees. During such visits the Department examines the association’s books, records etc, and seeks explanations of actions carried out. However, there is no specific power to require an association to produce the relevant documentation or to explain actions taken. It is therefore proposed to give the Department the power to serve a notice on any person requiring them to provide information relating to the affairs of an association and to produce to the Department or a person authorised by the Department documents relating to the affairs of an association.

6.14 While failure to provide information without a reasonable excuse would be an offence, it is not proposed that any person should be required to breach legal professional privilege or banker’s confidentiality.

6.15 Under existing legislation the Department has powers to appoint a person to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of any registered housing association. To ensure independence, no one who is or at any time has been an officer of the Department can be appointed to conduct such an inquiry. Given that the Housing Executive now has responsibility for managing the Social Housing Development Programme and is the primary funder of registered housing associations, it is proposed that current and former employees of the Executive should be excluded from conducting inquiries into the affairs of housing associations.

6.16 The Department’s powers in respect of inquiries into the affairs of registered housing associations allow the Department to take action to protect the interests of an association’s tenants, or to protect the association’s assets, when the interim or final report of such an inquiry is known. Where a more timely intervention is required, it is proposed to give the Department power to take the necessary action at any time after an inquiry has commenced. In England, the Housing Corporation has similar powers to intervene in the affairs of registered social landlords.

Introductory Tenancies

6.17 Housing Executive and housing association tenancies are initially let as introductory tenancies which become secure tenancies after 12 months if the tenant’s conduct is satisfactory. While the courts are required to grant an order for possession of an introductory tenancy if the landlord applies for such an order, the court will not grant an order for possession of a secure tenancy unless the landlord can prove that there are statutory grounds for possession.

6.18 Where a secure tenant has abandoned his accommodation, there is provision in existing legislation for the landlord to take possession of the dwelling without the necessity to apply for a court order, and to deal with any personal effects left behind by the tenant. However, there is no such provision in respect of introductory tenancies. Where an introductory tenancy has been abandoned, landlords are required to make a formal application to the court for an order for possession, and to store any property found on the premises in case the tenant wishes to reclaim it.

6.19 It is proposed to allow the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to regain possession of social housing let under introductory tenancies where such accommodation has been abandoned by the tenant, and to legally dispose of any property found in such accommodation. Essentially, the proposal is that the Executive and the associations should have the same powers in respect of abandoned introductory tenancies that they already have in respect of abandoned secure tenancies. The proposal would facilitate the housing management role of the Housing Executive and registered housing associations by enabling them to:

• re-let abandoned accommodation without undue delay, and
• deal with any property found on the premises without incurring excessive storage costs.

6.20 Introductory tenants would have a right to appeal where the landlord has repossessed their home in the belief that the tenancy has been abandoned. Where the court upholds such an appeal and the accommodation has been re-let, the landlord would be required to provide the tenant with alternative accommodation which is suitable for the tenant’s needs. Where the court upholds the appeal and the 12 month introductory period has expired, any accommodation which is allocated or re-allocated to the tenant will be let as a secure tenancy.

6.21 In England and Wales, there is no mechanism that permits local housing authorities to repossess abandoned accommodation let under either secure or introductory tenancies without recourse to the courts, although there is statutory provision for authorities to deal with property found in such accommodation.

6.22 Housing authorities in Scotland do not operate introductory tenancies. However, Scottish housing authorities have power to repossess abandoned accommodation let under secure tenancies, as well as power to deal with any property found on the premises.

Anti-Social Behaviour

6.23 The concept of “eligibility" for social housing or homelessness assistance allows the Housing Executive to treat applicants as ineligible on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour. This is intended to ensure that anti-social individuals do not gain access to social housing.

6.24 All new Housing Executive and registered housing association tenancies let to eligible applicants are let as introductory tenancies which become secure tenancies after 12 months if the tenant’s conduct is satisfactory. Introductory tenants who engage in anti-social behaviour can be removed without the need for protracted legal proceedings.

6.25 Existing legislation enables the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to seek an order for possession of a secure tenancy on the basis of anti-social behaviour by:

• the tenant, or
• a member of the tenant’s household, or
• a person visiting the tenant,

which causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance in the “locality" of the tenant’s home to persons living in or visiting the area. Seeking possession is a last resort and social landlords will normally seek to control anti-social behaviour by mediation or via an injunction.

6.26 It is proposed that the Housing Executive should be required to publish its policies and procedures in relation to anti-social behaviour. The proposal would help make clear to Housing Executive’s tenants the standard of behaviour expected of them as well as the kind of help and support they can expect from the Executive. This reflects a similar duty which applies to local housing authorities, Housing Action Trusts and registered social landlords in England.

6.27 Existing provision which is intended to give the Housing Executive and registered housing associations grounds for possession where a tenant has been convicted of using a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes has proved to be of no practical use, given that no offence of “using a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes" exists in law. It is therefore proposed to amend that provision to provide grounds for possession where an offence has been committed which involves the use of a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes.

6.28 The ground for possession relating to using a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes reflects a similar ground for possession in English legislation. However, it is not proposed to amend the relevant legislation in England as it appears that the courts in that jurisdiction are prepared to act in accordance with the spirit of the legislation and will grant an order for possession where an offence has been committed which involves the use of a dwelling house for immoral or illegal purposes.

Northern Ireland Housing Council

6.29 The Northern Ireland Housing Council is an advisory body comprising representatives from all of Northern Ireland’s district councils. The purpose of the Housing Council is to ensure that local government has a voice in high-level decision-making on housing matters, given that housing was, prior to 1971, a local authority responsibility.

6.30 Existing legislation provides that the Board of the Housing Executive shall consist of nine persons, three of whom are nominated by the Northern Ireland Housing Council from its membership. It appears that the level of representation was originally set at three in the expectation that the Council’s nominations to the Housing Executive Board would reflect the three main political parties of those days.

6.31 Since an amendment to the law in 2003, the Minister in charge of the Department is required, when making appointments to the Housing Executive Board, to secure as far as practical that the Board is representative of the community in Northern Ireland. To facilitate this, the Housing Council is required to nominate as many of its members as may be determined by the Department, in accordance with procedures it is directed by the Department to use. This process is intended to allow the Minister to exercise a degree of choice when appointing the three representatives of the Housing Council to the Housing Executive Board.

6.32 With changing voting patterns, the 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, and it is therefore proposed to increase the number of Housing Council statutory nominees on the Board to four in order to achieve a broader balance of political representation. This will help the Minister to meet the statutory duty to secure that the Board is representative of the community.

Qualifying Shorthold Tenancies

6.33 Article 13(6) of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 provides that registered housing associations must seek the Department’s approval to dispose of land. This however does not apply if the land has been let under a secure tenancy or a tenancy that would be secure “but for paragraphs 1(b) to 9 of Schedule 2 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983".

6.34 A qualifying shorthold tenancy is a type of tenancy which can be granted by a registered housing association for a period of one to five years. The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which introduced qualifying shorthold tenancies, added a new paragraph (paragraph 10) to Schedule 2 to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 to provide that such tenancies are not secure tenancies. The 2003 Order should also have amended Article 13(6) of the 1992 Order to make reference to the new paragraph 10. It is proposed to correct this oversight, thereby enabling registered housing associations to offer tenancies on a shorthold basis without being required to seek the Department’s approval to dispose of land.

6.35 The proposal would bring Northern Ireland’s legislation more closely into line with similar legislation in England which provides that registered social landlords (i.e. housing associations) are not required to seek the consent of the Housing Corporation where they wish to offer an ‘assured shorthold tenancy’.

Definition of House in Multiple Occupation (HMO)

6.36 HMOs form part of the private rented sector and provide accommodation suitable for students and young people and, increasingly, for migrant workers. Because of the separate living arrangements of the occupants there are increased demands on management of the properties, many of which are of poor quality and lack adequate fire precautions. The Housing Executive has power to require landlords of HMOs to ensure that that appropriate standards are met and it is therefore important that HMOs are accurately identified so that the enforcement regime can be properly targeted.

6.37 A judgement handed down following a judicial review in 2005 criticised the current definition of an HMO in Northern Ireland on the basis that the definition of “family" for HMO purposes fails to recognise that members of an extended family living under the same roof comprise a single household. While the judge suggested that the definition used in England could be adapted for our purposes, English HMO legislation is quite complex and there is no clear “read-across" to the position in Northern Ireland.

6.38 The Department and the Housing Executive believe that the definitions of “HMO" and "family" used in Scotland would meet our requirements and it is therefore proposed that the definition of an HMO should be amended to mean “a house occupied by 3 or more qualifying persons, being persons who are not all members of the same family or one or other of two families".

6.39 Consequential to the amendment to the definition of an HMO, it is proposed to amend the definition of “family" for HMO purposes to include uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces.

6.40 The proposal would ensure that properties occupied by single extended families, which were never intended to be regarded as HMOs, will not be subject in law to the full regulatory regime prescribed for such accommodation.

Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006: Notices of Refusal

6.41 Article 33 of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 provides that private landlords may (and, in some circumstances, are required to) apply to district councils to have accommodation inspected to determine if it is fit for human habitation.

6.42 Article 36 of the Private Tenancies Order sets out the procedures which councils must follow in relation to the inspection of dwellings for fitness and Article 36(5) provides that, where the council does not consider a dwelling to be fit, it must serve on the landlord of the dwelling-house a notice “informing him of its refusal of his application and the reasons for refusal". While it can be assumed that landlords apply for fitness inspections in the hope that a certificate of fitness will be issued, an application made by a landlord under Article 33 is an application for an inspection and not an application for a certificate. The wording of Article 36(5) is therefore misleading, as it could be taken to mean either that the landlord has applied for a certificate of fitness (rather than for an inspection of the premises), or that councils have a duty to serve notice of refusal to carry out an inspection. Neither interpretation would be correct.

6.43 It is proposed to amend Article 36(5)(a) of the Private Tenancies Order to make it clear that the purpose of a “notice of refusal" is to inform a landlord of a district council’s refusal to issue a certificate of fitness and the reasons for refusal. This would ensure that the legislation more accurately reflects the purpose of “notices of refusal" issued by district councils.

6.44 It is also proposed to correct a minor error in Article 35 of the Private Tenancies Order (Article 35(5) refers to “an application under this Order" rather than “an application under this Article").

7. Responsibility for Developing and Delivering Policy

7.1 The Department for Social Development, through its Housing Division, is responsible for providing the financial, legislative and policy framework in which the Housing Executive and the housing association movement operate. The Housing Executive is responsible for assessing social housing need and drawing up plans to enable that need to be met. Housing associations provide all new social housing including specialist housing for elderly people and those with special needs.

8. Consideration of Available Data and Research

8.1 Some data is available on those presenting as homeless although this information is recorded by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive by household type; single males, single females, couples ,families, pensioner households and undefined. Information is also recorded on the reasons these household types present as homeless. The new requirements on the Housing Executive will have a positive impact on the homeless and came about as a result of the inter-departmental, cross-sectoral working group set up by the Department to consider homelessness in the context of promoting social inclusion. The Steering Group set up to take forward the recommendations from the working group are responsible for the changes being enacted in the Bill. The data available is attached at Annex A.

8.2 The majority of the provisions in this Bill do not impact on the Section 75 categories and data is therefore not available. This is essentially a Bill which makes technical amendments to current legislation.

9. Assessment of Impacts

9.1 Any impacts of the Bill are not on the Section 75 Groups but there will generally be benefits for social housing tenants by way of the publication of information on the Housing Executives policy on homelessness and more importantly the right of appeal to the County Court on matters of law and anti social behaviour,

9.2 While individually the issues in this 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. A number of the proposed measures are recommendations from earlier consultations and one is necessary as a result of judicial review.

9.3 Some of the measures are either aimed at clarifying existing legislation or are of a technical nature.

ANNEX A

Households Presenting as Homeless by Household Type 2001-02 to 2006-07

Religion

Total Allocations by Religion

Allocations to Persons with Homeless Points

Allocations to Persons not Homeless by Religion

Total Waiting List By Religion

Applicants On The Waiting List With Homeless Points

Applicants On The Waiting List Without Homeless Points By Religion

Ethnic Origin

Total Allocations by Ethnic Origins

Persons with Homeless Points by Ethnic Origins

Persons without Homeless Points by Ethnic Origins

Total Waiting List by Ethnic Origins

Applicants on the Waiting List With Homeless Points by Ethnic Origins

Applicants on the Waiting List Without Homeless Points by Ethnic Origins

Gender

Total Allocations by Gender

Allocations to Persons With Homeless Points by Gender

Non Homeless Allocations by Gender

Total Waiting List by Gender

Applicants on the Waiting List With Homeless Points by Gender

Applicants on the Waiting List Without Homeless Points by Gender

Marital Status

Total Allocations by Marital Status

Allocations by Persons With Homeless Points by Marital Status

Allocations by Persons Without Homeless Points by Marital Status

Total Waiting List by Marital Status

Applicants on the Waiting List With Homeless Points by Marital Status

Applicants on the Waiting List Without Homeless Points by Marital Status

Age Bands

Total Allocations to All Persons by Age Bands

Allocations to Persons With Homeless Points by Age Bands

Allocations to Persons Without Homeless Points by Age Bands

Total Applicants on the Waiting List - Age Bands

Applicants on the Waiting List With Homeless Points by Age Bands

Applicants on the Waiting List Without Homeless Points by Age Bands

Household Composition

Total Allocations by Household Composition

Allocations to Applicants With Homeless Points by Household Composition

Allocations to Applicants Without Homeless Points by Household Composition

Total Waiting List by Household Composition

Applicants on the Waiting List With Homeless Points by Household Composition

Applicants on the Waiting List Without Homeless Points by Household Composition

Correspondence from DSD
16 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD
20 October 2009

Mr Peter McCallion
Your Ref: CSD/009/2008/3/PMcC
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

20 October 2009

Dear Peter,

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL

1. You wrote to John Ball on 2nd October 2009 requesting responses from the Department on the following issues arising from Committee scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill on 24th September and 1st October.

Housing Associations: consultation on homelessness strategy

2. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Housing Executive should be required to publish its homelessness strategy for consultation with key stakeholders including registered housing associations. There are two points to make on this: firstly, the proposed new Article 6B(8) would require the Housing Executive to consult on the strategy; secondly, the Housing Executive, as a statutory body, is, in general terms, required to consult on all new policies.

Housing Associations: review

3. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Department’s role in the regulation of registered housing associations should be subject to a wide-ranging review. The Department is aware that the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations has been pressing for such a review. However, the Department is satisfied that its powers for regulating the affairs of housing associations are necessary for protecting the public purse as well as the interests of tenants. If it would be useful, the Department can provide the Committee with specific evidence from the recent round of housing association inspections to support this position.

4. Associations which have been found to be operating satisfactorily in the current round of inspections will be subject to a “lighter touch" review during the next round.

Housing Associations: code of practice

5. The Committee heard from the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations about difficulties faced by registered housing associations in terms of dealing with the current law on conflicts of interest, and suggested repealing the existing provision and replacing it with a code of practice.

6. The Federation gave the example of an association not being able to use a particular builder because of their family relationship with a cleaner in the association. In light of this, the Department is concerned that some associations are incorrectly interpreting the current legal position. The Department is clear that the existing law is needed to ensure probity and proper use of public funds. However, it is not intended to unfairly constrain the conduct of proper business.

7. The Department will write to the Federation to clarify the current position.

Housing Associations: intervention by the Department

8. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that clause 8 should clarify the circumstances in which the Department will intervene in the affairs of an association.

9. The Department’s powers to intervene in the affairs of housing associations are reserve powers and would not be used unless absolutely necessary to protect the public purse or the interests of tenants. The legislation makes it clear that the Department may intervene where an inquiry or audit has commenced and the Department has reasonable grounds to believe that there has been misconduct or mismanagement and immediate action is needed.

Anti-social behaviour: support for communities

10. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should be amended to provide for support for communities to combat anti-social behaviour issues.

11. The Housing Executive already works with established community groups in tackling anti-social behaviour.

12. The Department has issued guidance to the Housing Executive on publishing its policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour which emphasises the importance of involving Supporting Communities (NI), the Community Advisory Group and any other significant local groups.

Review of priority need status

13. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should be amended to require a review of the effectiveness of priority need status in alleviating homelessness.

14. This would be a very fundamental shift in policy. Existing housing policy in Northern Ireland is underpinned by the principle that scarce resources are prioritised to meet housing need. Removing priority need and intentionality would erode this principle in fundamental ways and the Department would be concerned about the implications this could have for a large number of people in housing need.

Delegation of the assessment of homelessness

15. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should be amended to enable registered housing associations to assess applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation. The Department is in discussion with the Housing Executive with a view to identifying the best way to involve housing associations in the assessment process. If a solution can be identified, the Department may bring forward any necessary legislation at a future date.

Code of guidance

16. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Department should be required to issue guidance on homelessness to the Housing Executive. In other parts of the UK, where there are large numbers of relatively small housing authorities, guidance on homelessness is issued by Government to ensure broad consistency of approach. In Northern Ireland, there is a single large housing authority (the Housing Executive). It is therefore appropriate that guidance on homelessness is issued centrally by the Housing Executive to its local offices.

Housing Executive Board

17. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should provide for at least four Housing Council representatives on the Board and that consideration should be given to appointing a tenant representative. When appointing the membership of the Housing Executive Board, the Minister is required to ensure that the membership is representative of the community in Northern Ireland. By appointing four members of the Housing Council to the Board, the Minister can ensure that those members are representative of the four main political parties.

18. While the membership of the Housing Executive Board must be representative of the community, each member is appointed on merit and individuals cannot be appointed purely on the basis that they would be representative of tenants or any other group. Vacancies on the Board are advertised in the press and any person who feels that they would be in a position to represent tenants’ interests is welcome to apply.

Traveller accommodation

19. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should be amended to require that the Housing Executive’s homelessness strategy would contain a commitment to provide “culturally sensitive" accommodation for Irish Travellers.

20. The Housing Executive already has statutory responsibility for the provision of Travellers’ sites. It is unclear how the proposal might further assist in delivering on this responsibility.

Code of practice for social landlords

21. The Committee has requested the Department’s view on a proposal that the Bill should be amended to require the Department to provide a code of practice to all social landlords relating to policies and procedures on anti-social behaviour. In fact the Department has already issued guidance to the Housing Executive on dealing with anti-social behaviour as well as guidance on the publication of policies and procedures relating to anti-social behaviour. It is proposed to issue similar guidance to registered housing associations. In the circumstances there would not appear to be any particular need to create a statutory duty in respect of such guidance.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Martin

cc: Michael Sands
John Ball
Billy Crawford
Rory Muldrew
Stephen Baird

Correspondence from DSD
27 October 2009

Mr Peter McCallion Your Ref: CSD/009/2008/3/PMcC
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 412
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
BELFAST
BT4 3XX

27 October 2009

Dear Peter

Housing (Amendment) Bill

1. You wrote to John Ball on 12th October 2009 requesting responses from the Department on issues arising from Committee scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill on 8th October. We discussed a number of those issues at the meeting of the Committee on 15th October and I am now taking the opportunity to follow up that discussion in writing.

Clause 1 Amendment B

2. The Committee has sought the Department’s view on reviews of the homelessness strategy being undertaken more than once every five years. While the Housing Executive feels that a new strategy could not be produced more than once every five years given the need for medium and long-term planning, it is intended that the strategy action plans would be reviewed on an annual basis to take account of, for example, the outcome of comprehensive spending reviews. The Department has also agreed that there is a case for the Department of Health, Social Services & Public Safety and the Northern Ireland Prison Service to be mentioned as bodies required to take the homelessness strategy into account in the exercise of their functions.

Clause 1 Amendment G

3. Members sought clarification on the following:

• The addition of provisions requiring referral to social services for those who are ineligible for support and who are in danger of destitution. The Housing Executive and social services are currently working together to identify the scope for improving the service for persons from abroad. The outcome of this work is likely to be reflected in the regulations made under clause 4 (power of the Department to prescribe form of advice and assistance).
• The impact of eliminating priority need. This would be a very fundamental shift in policy. Existing housing policy in Northern Ireland is underpinned by the principle that scarce resources are prioritised to meet housing need. Removing priority need would erode this principle in fundamental ways and the Department would be concerned about the implications this could have for a large number of people in housing need. The elimination of priority need could have the effect of giving homeless applicants precedence over other applicants on the waiting list who have applied for housing through the common selection scheme and may be in equal or greater need.
• The Department’s policy in respect of homelessness among travellers. Travellers have essentially the same entitlement to assistance under homelessness legislation as members of the settled community. The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 provides that a person is homeless if their accommodation consists of a moveable structure or vehicle and there is no place where the person is entitled or permitted to place it and to reside in it. By providing sites for Travellers to park their caravans, the Housing Executive effectively prevents Travellers from becoming homeless. The Executive also provides “group housing" which is designed to take account of the cultural needs of Travellers.
• The Department’s policy in relation to provision of families suffering intimidation as a consequence of a non-tenancy related conviction of a family member. The Housing Selection Scheme allows the Housing Executive to award “intimidation points" to persons who are threatened with homeless as a consequence of intimidation. However, it should be emphasised that the Housing Executive has power to treat an applicant as ineligible for assistance under the homelessness legislation if the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour. It should also be noted that the courts have power to grant an order for possession where a secure tenant of the Housing Executive or a registered housing association, or a member of the tenant’s household, has been convicted of an indictable offence. In the scenario outlined in your letter, the Housing Executive would have power to decide whether or not to re-house the family concerned.
• The provision of free accommodation to a homeless family even where one parent is working. The Housing Executive is required by law to charge rent for temporary accommodation provided to homeless people. Homeless applicants who are not in receipt of housing benefit may have difficulty meeting the cost of hostel accommodation which reflects the high level of services provided in such facilities. The Department has therefore asked the Housing Executive to find temporary accommodation for homeless working families in the private rented sector, which is more affordable.
• The provision of furnished social housing for destitute applicants. While social housing is let unfurnished, tenants who cannot afford furniture etc. can apply for the following elements of the social fund:
• Community Care Grants are available to applicants who are facing exceptional pressure. Applicant must be in receipt of a qualifying benefit. (Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and State Pension.) There is no maximum amount set for these payments which do not have to be paid back.
• Budgeting Loans are available to applicants who have been in receipt of a qualifying benefit (Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Employment Support Allowance and State Pension) for at least 26 weeks. The maximum loan available is £1,500 (including any outstanding loan(s)).
• Crisis Loans are available to any applicant who can demonstrate that they are facing an emergency which may affect their health and safety. The amount payable would be no more than the minimum cost to supply the necessary item(s) subject to a ceiling of £1,500 including any outstanding loan(s).

Clause 2 Amendment L

4. Members sought clarification on the Department’s policy in respect of providing training on social security issues to housing staff. Housing Executive staff dealing with housing benefit are trained in all relevant social security matters. While no specific training on social security issues is provided to staff dealing with homelessness, it should be noted that more than 90% of homeless applicants are already in receipt of benefits. Housing Executive staff will refer homeless applicants to the Social Security Agency if necessary.

Clause 5 Amendment Q

5. Members sought assurances on procedures to be adopted in respect of homelessness reviews and appeals. The Department intends to make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in relation to reviews of decisions taken on homelessness applications. The regulations would provide for applicants to be represented by themselves or by others and would ensure that decisions on reviews are taken by officers not involved in the original decision. The procedure for appealing decisions taken in relation to a review would be a matter for the county court.

Clause 5 Amendments R/S/T

6. Members sought clarity on the current practice in respect of the provision of accommodation during review of a homelessness decision. The Housing Executive’s practice is to provide temporary accommodation for the duration of a review where the applicant is in priority need. Where the applicant is not in priority need, the Executive’s practice is to provide temporary accommodation for a reasonable period to enable the applicant to make their own arrangements. The duration of a “reasonable period" would depend on an applicant’s circumstances and on the availability of housing in the area.

Clause 12 Amendment AC

7. I understand that the Committee Chair wrote to the Minister on 16 October in relation to the Housing Executive Board and so the issues related to clause 12 are not covered in this response.

Amendment AF

8. Members sought further information in relation to the interpretation of intentionality and the consequences for homelessness provision if the interpretation is subject to change. The interpretation of Article 6 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (becoming homeless intentionally) is a matter for the Housing Executive although the Department can issue guidance if necessary. Any change to Article 6 could make it more difficult to ensure that housing is allocated in the most appropriate way. The comments above on the likely impact of eliminating priority need are also relevant to intentionality.

Amendment AI

9. Members sought further information in relation to a review of the procedures for regulating registered housing associations and an alignment of procedures between the Housing Executive and associations.

10. The procedures for regulating housing associations are necessary for protecting the interests of taxpayers and tenants. The Department is satisfied that the procedures are commensurate with the risks involved.

11. The Department is broadly in favour of aligning procedures between the Housing Executive and registered associations wherever possible.

Amendment AL

12. Members sought clarification in respect of the legislative timetable for the regulation of private landlords. Proposals for the private rented sector are set out in “Building Sound Foundations", a strategy for the Private Rented Sector, which was published for consultation between 15 May and 7 August 2009. It is intended that the proposals will be included in a Housing Bill to be introduced in the Assembly before the summer recess in 2010.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Martin

cc: Michael Sands, John Ball, Billy Crawford, Rory Muldrew, Stephen Baird

Correspondence from DSD
31 October 2009

Correspondence from DSD
2 November 2009

Mr Peter McCallion Your Ref: CSD/009/2008/3/PMcC
Social Development Committee Clerk
Room 412, Parliament Buildings, Stormont
BELFAST BT4 3XX

2 November 2009

Dear Peter

Housing (Amendment) Bill

1. You wrote to John Ball on 19th and 23rd October 2009 requesting responses from the Department on issues arising from Committee scrutiny of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. A number of these issues have been covered in Departmental oral briefing to the Committee and in previous correspondence. This letter deals with outstanding issues on anti-social behaviour and the Housing Selection Scheme. I have also taken the opportunity to clarify the Department’s position on the amendment to clause 2 of the Bill proposed by the Housing Rights Service.

Anti-Social Behaviour

Transfers

2. The Committee has requested information about transfers of “anti-social" tenants. I should emphasise that social landlords have no power to transfer tenants unless they specifically ask to be moved. In fact, the Housing Executive’s policy is not to transfer any tenant who is under investigation for anti-social behaviour. In order to provide further reassurance to the Committee, the Department proposes to take the following action:

(i) Issue guidance to emphasise the Department’s view that moving anti-social behaviour from one area to another would not be an acceptable approach to this problem;

(ii) Invite the Housing Executive to amend the Common Housing Selection Scheme to give social landlords formal authority to refuse transfer applications where the applicant or a member of the applicant’s household is subject to any form of sanction relating to anti-social behaviour such as an injunction or Anti-Social Behaviour Order;

(iii) Develop proposals for future legislation that would enable social landlords to withhold consent to an exchange of tenancies where a potential assignee or a member of such an assignee’s household is subject to any form of sanction relating to anti-social behaviour.

Information-sharing

3. The Committee is seeking clarity about information-sharing within the Housing Executive and between the Housing Executive and registered housing associations in relation to transfers of tenants with a history of anti-social behaviour. At present, data protection restrictions apply. However, the Department has been developing proposals for future legislation to enable social landlords to disclose information about sanctions imposed for anti-social behaviour where such information is required to enable a landlord to withhold consent to a mutual exchange or to refuse to complete a house sale. It is possible that this provision could be extended to enable social landlords to disclose such information where a tenant has applied for transfer to another landlord’s accommodation.

Area Impact Assessments

4. The Committee is seeking clarity about area impact assessments carried out prior to the transfer of anti-social tenants. Given that it is not Housing Executive policy to transfer such tenants, the question of area impact assessments does not arise.

Training and Support

5. The Committee is seeking the Department’s view on the provision of training and support for residents’ associations to manage anti-social behaviour. I can confirm that the Housing Executive does in fact provide awareness training to community groups and the Housing Community Network in how to report anti-social behaviour to the Executive’s local offices and the PSNI. There is a suite of information leaflets to support these activities.

6. The Committee may also be interested to know that the Housing Executive is about to send 10 community representatives to an accredited Neighbourhood Management Course being delivered by the PSNI. The course will bring together members of the Housing Community Network and community police officers and will address issues relating to partnership working and the delivery of localised community safety.

Common Housing Selection Scheme

7. The Committee is seeking clarity on the frequency and triggers for reviewing the Housing Selection Scheme and is requesting information on aspects of the Scheme which are subject to review, particularly those relating to equality of opportunity.

8. The current Scheme has been amended seven times since it was introduced in 2000 (most recently in February 2009) and was the subject of a detailed evaluation between 2001 and 2004. The Housing Executive has a statutory duty to ensure that the equality implications of policy changes to the Scheme are considered.

9. The Department is currently looking at whether the Scheme requires further modernisation. This work is at an early stage and will include consideration of a range of issues, including the account taken of waiting time and the allocation of sharing points.

Clause 2 – duty of Housing Executive to provide advice

10. We understand that Housing Rights Service wrote to the Committee recently seeking an amendment to clause 2 of the Bill. We have had an opportunity to discuss this issue with Housing Rights Service.

11. The Department is clear that this request was not raised during the work on promoting the social inclusion of homeless people. However, having considered this new request from Housing Rights Service, the Department sees that it has some merit. Although Article 10 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 gives the Department a general power of direction over the Housing Executive in relation to all its functions, it could be useful to include in the Bill a specific power for the Department to issue guidance to the Housing Executive in relation to clause 2. The Department, would, therefore, be content to support the amendment proposed by Housing Rights Service.

Yours sincerely

Stephen Martin

cc: Michael Sands, John Ball, Billy Crawford, Rory Muldrew, Stephen Baird

Appendix 5

Other Papers

Other Papers Submitted to the Committee

Assembly Research Paper The Housing (Amendment) Bill – July 2009

Assembly Research Paper on The Remit of Local Government on Tackling Homelessness – October 2009

Research Paper
July 2009

Research & Library Service

The Remit of Local Government
in Tackling Homelessness

Eleanor Murphy
Research Officer
Research & Library Service

1. As part of its consideration of the Housing (Amendment) Bill, the Committee is deliberating upon the possibility of ensuring that local councils take the homelessness strategy into consideration in the exercise of its functions. To assist the Committee with its consideration of this issue, this short briefing note examines the role of local authorities in other jurisdictions in respect of homelessness including how homelessness fits into the community planning process. The paper also considers the current role of local councils in Northern Ireland with regard to homelessness and the potential future role for local councils post-RPA.

The Duties of Local Authorities in other Jurisdictions with Regard to Homelessness

2. Local authorities in Great Britain have a greater statutory responsibility than local councils in Northern Ireland in respect of homelessness and indeed the local housing policy and strategy generally. Put simply, local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales take on a broadly similar role to that of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in relation to their duty to those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

3. In England, for example, the Government amended the homelessness legislation in 2002 through the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 to[1]:

• Ensure that all local authorities have in place a homelessness strategy based on a review of all forms of homelessness in their district. The strategy must be renewed every five years (but can do so more frequently if they wish) and social services must provide a reasonable assistance; and to
• Ensure that all local authorities strengthen the assistance available to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness by extending the priority need categories to homeless 16 and 17 year olds; care leavers aged 18-20; people who are vulnerable as a result of time spent in care, the armed forces, prison, custody, and people who are vulnerable because they have fled their home due to violence.

4. Local Authorities must also, Under s179(1) of the Housing Act 1996 secure ‘free of charge’ advice and information on homelessness and the prevention of homelessness (either by providing this itself or by securing it from other bodies). They must also ensure that there is a sufficient supply of accommodation (including increasingly the supply of new accommodation) and decide if a person is eligible for homelessness assistance/handle applications for assistance etc.

5. In exercising their duties under homelessness legislation local authorities in England must followed a ‘Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities’. There is also a similar statutory ‘Code of Guidance on Homelessness’ which local authorities in Scotland must adhere to[2].

Local Authorities, Homelessness and the ‘Community Planning’ Process in Scotland

6. Community Planning in a Scottish context is defined in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 as a process “by which the public services provided in the area of the local authority are provided and the planning of that provision takes place". Local authorities in Scotland have a duty to initiate, maintain and facilitate this process. A number of public sector organisations come together in the form of Community Planning Partnerships to take the community planning process forward (e.g. local authorities, health boards, fire and police services, enterprise agencies, transport partnerships, community, voluntary and private sector organisations)[3].

Further information on the community planning process and community planning structures is available from a previous research briefing paper produced for the Committee entitled ‘Neighbourhood Renewal in Scotland, England and Wales’.[4]

7. Where does homelessness fit into the community planning process? Firstly, it should be highlighted that community planning partnerships in Scotland can be quite complex structures, usually each local authority area has a community planning board (comprising of senior officials/councillors from the local authority, health board, police etc). Day to day management of the community planning process is delegated down to other groups, e.g. ‘theme’ groups such as community safety; health; community regeneration; employment and life long learning etc.

8. Community Planning Partnerships agree their strategic priorities for their local area through Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs); these priorities should by expressed as local outcomes (measured using a variety of local indicators) to be delivered by the partners (either individually or jointly) and must be relevant to the 15 National Outcomes set by the Scottish Government.

9. Homelessness and housing are relevant to many of the 15 National Outcomes particularly:

• National Outcome 10: “We live in well designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need".
• National Outcome 11: “We live in strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others".
• National Outcome 5: “Our children have the best start in life and are ready to succeed".
• National Outcome 6: “We live longer, healthier lives".
• National Outcome 7: “We have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society".
• National Outcome 8: “We have improved the life chances for children, young people and families at risk"[5].

10. Below are two illustrative examples of how homelessness fits into local authority Single Outcome Agreements (and how national priorities feed into local outcomes and progress monitored by local indictors). It should also be mentioned that local strategies, such as the local homelessness strategy, health and general housing strategies for each local authority area, should act as a vehicle for identifying priorities and implementing progress.

East Ayrshire Single Outcome Agreement 2008-2011[6]

National Outcome 6: We live longer, healthier lives

Local outcome is to improve the health and wellbeing of the local population by targeting health improvement interventions and programmes to communities and groups at greatest risk such as prisoners and people who are homeless.

Local indicator to monitor progress is the number of re-admissions for mental health problems for those who have had a hospital admission of over 7 days. Baseline figure for 2006/07 was 105 admissions for mental health problems progress target is to reduce this figure to 95 by 2011.

National Outcome 8: We have improved the life changes for children, young people and families at risk

Local outcome is to improve the educational achievement of children and young people at risk by, amongst other outcomes, reducing the risk of homelessness.

Two local indicators used to monitor progress are, i.e.

• The total number of homeless presentations each year - baseline figure for 2006/07 was 1,186 homeless presentations aim to reduce this figure to 1,064 by 2011.
• The percentage of repeat homelessness with one year - baseline figure for 2006/07 was 11.6% repeat homelessness within one year target and the target was to is reduce this to 11% by 2008/09.

Edinburgh Single Outcome Agreement 2009-2012[7]

National Outcome 7: We have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society

Local outcome is to reduce deprivation and all forms of inequality in Edinburgh through, amongst other things, the prevention of homelessness.

Local indicator to measure progress is an increase in the percentage of housing advice cases resulting in the prevention of homelessess from a baseline of 39% in 2009/10 to 47% in 2011/12.

The Current Role of Local Councils in Northern Ireland with Regard to Homelessness

11. As evident from the previous section the statutory duties of councils in Northern Ireland in relation to homelessness are not on par with local authorities in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. Whilst local councils in Northern Ireland do not have significant statutory duties directly pertinent to homelessness they do have an interest in homelessness on a number of other levels, this list is not exhaustive, but includes for example:

• Councils have a general interest in housing policy, particularly local district housing plans and strategies. The main vehicle for councils to exercise strategic and collective input into issues pertaining to homelessness is through the Northern Ireland Housing Council. The Housing Council is comprised of one representative from each of the 26 District Councils in Northern Ireland. The Housing Council is “an advisory and consultative body considering any matter affecting housing referred to it by the Department for Social Development or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive which appears to the Housing Council to be a matter pertinent to Housing on the wider front"[8]. The Housing Council have raised a number of homelessness-related issues with the Department over the last year, e.g. the Housing Executive’s Homelessness Strategy, empty homes, the regulation of the private rented sector (including issues around security and length of tenure), and mortgage rescue proposals[9]. There are plans for the Housing Council to have an enhanced role post-Review of Public Administration. However, how this role fits in with the future community planning model or indeed what role councils will have in relation to the wider issue of housing in respect of community planning requires further clarification.
• Councillors and council officials play a role in the formulation of district housing plans and local housing strategies. The preparation of local district housing plans involves consultation between the Housing Executive and local stakeholders, such as councillors and council officials. Through this process local councillors and officials can raise issues relevant to local homelessness such as social housing shortages, the impact of current and future demographic projections etc[10].
• Councillors often play a role as the first point of contact for some local residents in respect of their housing concerns. One only has to read through council minutes to deduce that people contact their local councillors (amongst other sources) for information and advice on housing and that councillors will, as a result, raise general issues of concern in council meetings. In addition to this, councillors and councils themselves will often take on a signposting role in that they will direct people (either in person or by providing contact numbers/web links on council websites) to the most relevant agencies (e.g. Housing Executive District Offices, community and voluntary bodies) that can deal with housing problems.
• Councils sponsor and support initiatives that promote the physical and mental wellbeing of people including those who are homeless, e.g. Coleraine Borough Council recently launched (April 2009) a new service called ‘Cook-It’ aimed at enhancing cooking stills and an understanding of health and nutrition. The initiative is targeted at a number of groups including residents in homeless shelters[11]. In 2006 Belfast City Council backed a Simon Community and Irish Football Association street soccer initiative aimed at homeless young people between the ages of 17-26 as part of the Council’s plans to improve services for young people[12].
• Homelessness can often be linked to anti-social behaviour, either because the tenant has to move out because they are the victims of anti-social behaviour or because the tenant has been evicted from their home because of their own anti-social behaviour. Although this issue is primarily within the remit of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, local councils do have a general interest in preventing and tackling the causes of anti-social behaviour in local communities, e.g. through community safety projects, anti-social behaviour forums, community safety wardens, initiatives to address hate crime etc.
• Councils joint fund (along with DSD) local voluntary and community bodies through the Community Support Programme. Whilst the aim of the programme is to strengthen communities, increase community participation and to promote social inclusion, some of this funding may indirectly assist families or individuals who are homeless or threatened with homelessness by providing advice or emotional support, e.g. through the provision of advice services on a range of issues such as benefits, housing, debt and support for local women’s groups.

The Transfer of Functions and the Potential Role of Local Councils Post-Review of Public Administration (RPA)

12. The following functions will transfer from the Department for Social Development to local government by 2011:

DSD Functions:

• Some urban regeneration functions including the neighbourhood renewal programme.
• Some functions associated with town and city regeneration such as public realm/environmental improvement schemes and comprehensive development.
• Local community development support (Community Support Programme and the Community Investment Fund).
• Living over the Shops initiative.

Northern Ireland Housing Executive Functions:

• Registration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
• Housing unfitness responsibilities, including repair and demolition notices.
• Local energy conservation (the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will retain its statutory role as the home energy conservation authority);
• Traveller transit sites.

13. There are no transferable functions that are explicitly related to homelessness, however, a number of the functions may indirectly lead local government to take a much wider interest in housing policy in general including issues around homelessness. It is difficult to envisage at this stage exactly what shape the community planning model will take in the future, but neighbourhood renewal will undoubtedly form an important part of local community plans. As housing is an implicit part of neighbourhood renewal one can only draw inferences that transferring this function will lead to the new councils paying closer attention to local housing need.

14. There are two other transferable functions which may impact on local council’s consideration of any homelessness strategy, i.e. the transfer of statutory duty for Traveller transit sites to local government and the possible transfer of the Living Over the Shops initiative. The initiative is aimed at tackling the shortage of local housing and is relevant to other transferable functions, i.e. town/city centre regeneration (by encouraging more people to live in town/city centres).

15. As none of the transferable functions overtly relate to homelessness, local councils may be somewhat constrained in tackling issues relating to homelessness in the exercise of their functions. In England and Wales, local authorities have been given much greater flexibility to overcome such constraints through ‘The Well Being Power’[13] (local authorities in Scotland also have a power to advance wellbeing). Before the introduction of the Well Being Power, local authorities in England and Wales could only do those things that they were empowered to do by specific statutory powers, duties and functions and did not have any means of overcoming any limitations they encountered. However, Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (the ‘2000 Act’) allows local authorities to do anything they consider likely to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area unless explicitly prohibited elsewhere in legislation[14].

16. In Wakefield, for example, families living on an estate blighted by crime and drug-abuse were said to be given a lifeline by the wellbeing power. It allowed the houses to be bought by the Council without a lengthy Compulsory Purchase Order process. The families were able to move away from the area and get a fair price for their homes and the Council was free to redevelop and regenerate the estate. To date, however, there has been limited use of the power by local authorities in England and Wales (i.e. only one in twelve councils is actually using the power)[15]. It may be possible that the relevance for local councils in Northern Ireland in respect of taking the homelessness strategy into consideration will be of greater relevance if councils receive a similar statutory power of well-being.

OCTOBER 2009

[1] Information extracted from Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homelessnesscode

[2] Scottish Executive (2005) Code of Guidance on Homelessness: Guidance on Legislation, Policies and Practices to Prevent and Resolve Homelessness.www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/53814/0012265.pdf

[3] Information extracted from www.improvementservice.org.uk/community-planning/#

[4] see archive.niassembly.gov.uk/io/research/2009/1809.pdf

[5] National Outcomes extracted from Scottish Government (2008) Single Outcome Agreements: Guidance for Community Planning Partnerships, p17. www.improvementservice.org.uk/library/download-document/2154-single-outcome-agreements-guidance-for-community-planning-partnerships/

[6] See www.improvementservice.org.uk/library/download-document/2370-east-ayrshire-single-outcome-agreement-2009-onwards-annex-2/

[7] See www.improvementservice.org.uk/library/download-document/2365-edinburgh-single-outcome-agreement-2009-onwards/

[8] Information extracted from the Northern Ireland Housing Council website - www.nihousingcouncil.org/About-the-NIHC/Our-vision.aspx

[9] Northern Ireland Housing Council (2009) Annual Report 2008-09. www.nihousingcouncil.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=39e0cf4a-c8c5-4b75-8da1-a7a9d0e39dcb

[10] For district housing plans see www.nihe.gov.uk/index/sp_home/plans/district_housing_plans.htm

[11] Coleraine Borough Council Press Release. ‘Coleraine groups invited to ‘Cook-It’, 27 April 2009, www.colerainebc.gov.uk/news/news_item.php?id=942

[12] Belfast City Council Press Release. ‘Camaraderie and confidence with sport’. www.belfastcity.gov.uk/news/news.asp?id=63&month=February_2006

[13] For further information on the Well Being Power see www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/localregional/localcommunity/wellbeingpower/

[14] Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Practical Use of the Well-Being Power, p1. www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/localregional/localcommunity/wellbeingpower/

[15] Department for Communities and Local Government News Release. ‘Healy – wellbeing power is forgotten tool in tough economic times’. 17 November 2008. www.communities.gov.uk/news/localgovernment/1061378

Appendix 6

List of Witnesses

List of Witnesses who gave
Evidence to the Committee

Grainia Long Chartered Institute of Housing

Ricky Rowledge Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland
Tony McQuillan Council for the Homeless Northern Ireland

Michael Sands DSD
Stephen Martin DSD
Allison Kingsmill DSD
Avril Hiles DSD
Brian Doherty DSD
Eilish O’Neill DSD
Stephen Baird DSD

Evelyn Collins Equality Commission for NI
Patrice Hardy Equality Commission for NI

Janet Hunter Housing Rights Service
Nicola McCrudden Housing Rights Service

Marnette Lyons Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland

Declan Boyle Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland
Dairmid Laird Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland
Joe Nugent Landlords’ Association of Northern Ireland

Pat Conway Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
Sile McLean Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
Barry McMullan Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

Chris Williamson Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Frank Dunne Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Ray Cashell Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations
Arthur Canning Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations

Gerry Gallagher Northern Ireland Housing Council
Jim Brown Northern Ireland Housing Council
Eamonn O’Neill Northern Ireland Housing Council

Peter O’Neill Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Sorcha McKenna Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Roisin Devlin Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

Paddy McGettigan Simon Community Northern Ireland
Ciara O’Hagan Simon Community Northern Ireland
Alyson Kilpatrick Simon Community Northern Ireland

Murray Watt Supporting Communities Northern Ireland
Colm McDaid Supporting Communities Northern Ireland