This report was not approved formally by the Committee prior to the suspension of the Assembly on 14 October 2002, but is published by order of the Speaker.

Committee for Social Development

Tuesday 17 September 2002

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

Housing Bill: 
Committee Stage
(NIA 24/01)

Members present:

Mr Cobain (Chairperson)
Mr B Hutchinson
Mr G Kelly
Mrs Nelis
Mr ONeill
Mr M Robinson

Witnesses:

Mr S Baird )
Mr S Carson ) Department for Social Development
Mr G Davidson )

The Chairperson: I welcome Mr Scott Carson from the Housing Bill team, and Mr Stephen Baird and Mr George Davidson from housing management branch. That is the policy branch that is responsible for the matters contained in the early clauses of the Bill.

It may be necessary to suspend proceedings at approximately 2.15 pm so that Committee members may participate in the plenary debate on the motion seeking extension to the Committee Stages of the Housing Bill and the Housing Support Services Bill.

Welcome, gentlemen. Mr Carson will outline the reasons behind the need for the Bill and its main thrust. Members will also find it useful if you indicate housing legislation that will be amended as a consequence of the Bill’s provisions.

Mr Carson: The Housing Bill is the first piece of primary housing legislation for almost 10 years. It contains provisions that relate to a discretionary grants scheme, provisions to help with antisocial behaviour and social housing, provisions regarding caravan sites for travellers, and a registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation. Furthermore, it contains a range of miscellaneous items. It is therefore a large Bill, with 150 clauses and 5 schedules.

The Bill was published in draft for consultation and its provisions were largely welcomed in the subsequent responses. The amendments to the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 are set out in the Bill. Some of the Bill’s provisions are self-standing.

The Chairperson: The Committee’s purpose is to carry out the detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Housing Bill, to scope the Bill and to identify, in the first instance, those clauses with which the Committee is content, and to agree to return to the remaining clauses at a future date.

Where it is evident that a clause must be explored in detail, either because of concerns or suggested amendments, we shall not dwell on it today but shall return to it in due course.

I stress that members should read the relevant clauses and paragraphs in the Bill in association with the relevant commentary in the explanatory and financial memorandum, and in the other papers provided. Each clause and schedule must be considered in turn. The Committee’s options are to agree that it is content with the clause as drafted, or to refer the clause for further consideration at some later date. Before reaching such decisions, members may seek clarification on any clause.

The detailed arrangements for consideration of the Bill were agreed at our previous meeting on 5 September 2002. If we cannot reach agreement on a clause or amendment I shall, with permission, put it to the members that consideration of that clause be referred for further consideration.

Long title agreed to.

Clause 1 (Introductoty tenancies)

The Chairperson: Several amendments have been suggested by interested parties.

Mr ONeill: We need to discuss the clause in considerable depth.

Clause 1 referred for further consideration.

Clause 2 (Duration of introductory tenancy)

The Chairperson: Again, several amendments have been suggested by interested parties.

Clause 2 referred for further consideration.

Clause 3 (Licences)

Mr ONeill: What terms will the officers use to define "nuisance"?

Mr Carson: It is not proposed to define "nuisance" in the legislation. The words "nuisance" and "annoyance" have been used for some years in legislation, and it has been left to the courts to define "nuisance". One person’s nuisance may not be a nuisance to someone else.

Mr ONeill: That is exactly why I asked you. In your view, it is a judicial matter. It impacts on people’s concerns about visitors and on how those concerns can be managed by the Housing Executive or the housing association. Does the Department’s lack of clarity at this stage present difficulties in management?

Mr Carson: There is no lack of clarity in the Department’s thinking. The Department is satisfied that the courts will interpret "nuisance" and "annoyance" as they have done in the past, and it is as well to leave interpretations up to them. If "nuisance" is defined today, something will certainly happen. Someone else’s definition of "nuisance" will be different, and the legislation must always be changed.

Mr ONeill: It is difficult to talk without thinking of practical situations. You said that "nuisance" would be defined legally. Suppose a visitor arrives at a tenant’s house and "nuisance" occurs. The tenant is responsible for that visitor and that nuisance. Are we not in danger of putting vulnerable tenants at risk? The best example of a vulnerable tenant is a woman who is estranged from her husband as a result of domestic violence. The husband may turn up, perhaps after a few pints, seeking what he considers are his rights. A melee may ensue, and, according to some people’s interpretation of the Bill, that vulnerable woman would be responsible for that tenant’s behaviour.

Mr Carson: No. The Housing Executive must act in a reasonable manner when taking action against someone. It would be unreasonable for the Housing Executive to take any action against the woman in Mr ONeill’s example who did not have any control over the separated husband or against an old person who was unable to control certain people.

Mr ONeill: I admit that it is a stark example, but there are degrees in between. You have to admit that unless the rules are clear, an innocent person will end up carrying the can.

Mr Carson: That will not happen because the case will go to court and the court will have to consider whether it is reasonable to expect the person to make that decision.

Mr G Kelly: Mr ONeill talked about who might be responsible, and that is something that we shall face as we move through the clauses. It is right that the Department should not interpret who or what is the nuisance and annoyance. Will there be a definitive legal interpretation of nuisance and annoyance, or will the court treat each case individually?

Mr Carson: The court will interpret the circumstances case by case.

Mr G Kelly: Therefore, the decisions will be left to the court, and the Committee cannot be given a legal definition of nuisance or annoyance.

Mr Carson: No, that will not be defined in the Bill.

Mr B Hutchinson: How do you get somebody to court? The court only makes a decision about what to do; who makes the decision to bring a case to court?

Mr Carson: I assumed that we were talking about a case in which the Housing Executive was going to repossess a house because of the behaviour of, for example, a visitor. In that case, the Housing Executive would have to go court to get possession of the house.

Mr B Hutchinson: Therefore, the Housing Executive decides why one should go to court and the court decides the punishment.

Mr Carson: The court decides the punishment — whether the house should be repossessed — and decides whether it was reasonable for the Housing Executive to take the action that it did.

Mr B Hutchinson: Why might the Housing Executive want to take somebody to court to repossess his or her house?

Mr Carson: When a house is being used to sell drugs.

Mr B Hutchinson: I would like to see the Housing Executive do that. I have reported around 10 such instances.

Mr ONeill: In order to initiate the process a judgement must be made. That judgement is made on the basis of what constitutes a nuisance. Therefore, it is the officer who makes the judgement. Clarity is needed about what the officer should do, and a decision should be made on what constitutes a nuisance or annoyance.

The Chairperson: In order for the Housing Executive or housing associations to use the clause there must be a history of nuisance in the home. It should not be a one-off. We are talking about complaints about noise; that is similar to problems that arise with tenants who complain about their neighbours. The difficulty with defining nuisance is knowing where to stop.

Mr B Hutchinson: That is why I ask my question. Everybody’s definition of nuisance is different. Noises annoy elderly people more than they annoy a young couple or a young single person — the least wee thing will annoy elderly people, which is understandable. They are at a different stage of life and want different things out of life. The elderly people should be protected. What constitutes a formal complaint in the first instance, and what constitutes a number of formal complaints?

Mr Davidson: The Housing Executive has some experience in this area. Therefore, I suggest that we obtain some details from it about the type of case in which it has been involved. The Housing Executive could provide some background to nuisance or behaviour that it has encountered and the process it has gone through. Eviction is a last resort for the Housing Executive when it has explored every other avenue. Before it takes any action, the Housing Executive must be sure that a court would support its recommendation.

Mr ONeill: Will there be sufficient advice on the issue?

The Chairperson: Does the Committee wish to refer the clause for further consideration until it has that information?

Mr B Hutchinson: No, I am happy enough.

Mr ONeill: I am happy to accept the clause on the Department’s assurance. Undoubtedly, such a clause is necessary, but it must be structured.

Mr B Hutchinson: My concern is that each district office or housing association will deal with it in a different way, which would be a breach of people’s human rights. We need the same structure across the board. We cannot have Belfast district 5 deciding that it will take certain action and Belfast district 6, using the same information, deciding that it will not take that action. People will complain, saying, "I have a sister who lives in district 5 and this and that happened; and she got this done, and I can’t get it done". That is the difficulty.

Mrs Nelis: The clause is open to interpretation.

Mr B Hutchinson: We need guidance.

Mr Davidson: Another issue is whether the Housing Executive’s individual districts would have the final say as to who is taken to court or has proceedings taken against them. There may well be a central headquarters function, where it looks at individual cases and tries to achieve commonality.

The Chairperson: I assume that the Housing Executive will take the cases rather than individual offices. We require an overall strategy from the Housing Executive because, as Mr Hutchinson said, each case will be judged against a criterion. It would be crazy to have individual offices taking cases.

Mr B Hutchinson: That will happen with housing associations.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 4 referred for further consideration.

Clause 5 (Notice of proceedings for possession)

Mr ONeill: Most support agencies seem to be in favour of this clause. Our research note indicates that there is some concern about social landlords ensuring evictions are carried out fairly and appropriately. Will clarity be provided for social landlords?

Mr Davidson: The Department can bring any clarity or instructions required to the Housing Executive, which already has the powers to direct social landlords in any of their functions. If necessary, we can do that.

Mr ONeill: I imagine that it will.

Mr B Hutchinson: We need to be careful. We are dealing with private landlords, and we know how they have behaved in the past. One of my concerns is that private landlords do not appear to have to provide any proof for grounds for possession. How will we deal with that?

Mr Carson: The clause does not deal with private landlords, merely the Housing Executive and registered housing associations.

Mr ONeill: The clause raises the perennial question of where those tenants go.

Mr B Hutchinson: To private landlords.

Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 referred for further consideration.

Clause 7 (Effect of beginning proceedings for possession)

Mr ONeill: The clause is acceptable, but it could be subject to amendments to earlier clauses.

Mr Carson: It will depend on the amendments.

Mr B Hutchinson: We do not know whether we are content with the clause. Suggested amendments to other clauses may affect this one.

The Chairperson: If we have difficulties, the clause should be referred for further consideration.

Clause 7 referred for further consideration.

Clause 8 (Persons qualified to succeed tenant)

The Chairperson: Why does the clause employ the word "he"?

Mr Carson: Under the Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954 "he" is taken to means "she" also; therefore we normally use the word "he" in legislation.

Mr B Hutchinson: I am sure Ms McWilliams will love to hear that.

The Chairperson: There is a serious point to be made here.

Mr Carson: The Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954 provides that "he" is taken to mean both male and female.

The Chairperson: Can we not say "he or she" in the Bill?

Mr Carson: There is no need to: the Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954 automatically applies to the Bill.

Mr B Hutchinson: Therefore, if you know the Interpretation Act you are all right.

Mrs Nelis: It is sexist: the terminology is totally out of date and needs to be changed.

Mr Carson: You would need to change the Interpretation Act.

Mrs Nelis: If we need to do it, we should: in the meantime you should defer to the Equality Commission and try not to be sexist.

Clause 8 referred for further consideration.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Succession to introductory tenancy)

The Chairperson: Several amendments to the clause need to be considered.

Clause 10 referred for further consideration.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Right of introductory tenants of the Executive to have repairs carried out)

The Chairperson: Tenants are also entitled to get repairs carried out.

Mr ONeill: In light of our earlier discussions, the clause should be referred for further consideration.

Clause 12 referred for further consideration.

Clause 13 (Provision of information about tenancies)

The Chairperson: . Amendments to the clause have been proposed.

Clause 13 referred for further consideration.

Clause 14 referred for further consideration.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 20 referred for further consideration.

Clause 21 (Power to grant injunctions against anti-social behaviour)

The Chairperson: Several amendments to the clause have been suggested. Does the Committee wish to refer the clause for further consideration?

Mr B Hutchinson: I want to ask a question before the clause is referred for further consideration. Why is this happening? The provision was included in legislation in 1996, and the UK Government are going out to consultation. Therefore, why do we include the clause in the Bill when it has been proven in England not to work? People there have recognised that enforcement is not the way to deal with the problem. We must understand and deal with the causes. Why are we lifting it from English legislation for our Bill? The provision dates from 1996; it is now 2002 and the legislation will probably not be implemented until 2003. We are going with 1990s’ thinking, yet the British Government have decided to go out to consultation.

Mr Davidson: It has been included because social landlords in Northern Ireland want the power to take out an injunction as one element of dealing with antisocial behaviour. It was not included in the original legislation that the Department drafted in 1996; it was added subsequently.

Mr B Hutchinson: Do you agree that it has been decided in England that the provision is wrong, it is to be changed and that the Government are going out to consultation?

Mr Carson: England went out to consultation on much wider powers. They are considering antisocial behaviour in the wider context, and not only in relation to housing.

Mr B Hutchinson: What does "in the wider context" mean?

Mr Carson: It takes into account antisocial behaviour in the streets, town centres et cetera, as opposed to this clause, which only deals with social housing.

Mr B Hutchinson: The English legislation dealt with social housing in many different places, including Bradford.

Mr Davidson: Perhaps I might ask the member whether he is considering antisocial behaviour orders as opposed to injunctions, which have been in use England for some time but have proven —

The Chairperson: Perhaps we might refer the matter for further consideration.

Clause 21 referred for further consideration.

The Chairperson: We shall suspend until Thursday at 2.00 pm.

12 September 2002 (ii) / Menu / 19 September 2002