Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I welcome the following departmental officials to the meeting: Heloise Brown, acting director of social housing policy and oversight; and Stephen Baird, deputy principal, social housing policy branch. Heloise, I think that you are going to make some opening remarks, and we will then come to members' questions. Thank you.

Dr Heloise Brown (Department for Communities): Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to brief you on the forthcoming Housing (Amendment) Bill, and to talk through its content, before it goes to the Assembly.

You have, I think, had a written briefing that sets out the provisions in the Bill. The proposals in the Bill stem from long-standing engagement with stakeholders on how best to address unacceptable behaviour in communities, particularly where current powers appear to be ineffective. The ineffectiveness of the current powers might be a subject that we return to. The proposals are intended to clarify and strengthen existing legislation to deal with the most serious unacceptable behaviour. Landlords have a range of mechanisms available to them to deal with unacceptable behaviour. It has to be stressed that all those measures are taken as part of a staged and incremental approach. The Department has been advised by social landlords and other stakeholders that some of the current powers are not as effective or enforceable as they could be.

Members may wish to note in particular the three key provisions in the Bill. First, there are proposals to make changes to how injunctions can be used to tackle unacceptable behaviour. Discussions with stakeholders, including the Department of Justice, identified a need to lower the threshold for landlords to apply to the courts for an injunction. That is the first element of the changes to injunctions. That proposal is in there because social landlords have told us that the current threshold is far too high for their requests to be met. The proposed changes will make injunctions a more useful tool that landlords can use to try to bring unacceptable behaviour to an end before it escalates to a more serious level. So there is an element of lowering the threshold.

The proposed changes would also introduce a power for courts, when granting an injunction, to attach a power of arrest without warrant for use whenever an injunction has been breached, including a power of entry for the Police Service. That would be available only where the court believes — it will be a decision to be taken by the court — that there is use or threatened use of violence or that there is a significant risk of harm to others. Again, the purpose of the provision is to enable a quicker resolution to the behaviour before it escalates, with an opportunity for intervention. A few more changes are set out in the briefing paper around retaining the power to exclude over-18s from residential tenancies where there is a significant risk of harm, and adding positive requirements to injunctions. There is also a move to refer to "unacceptable behaviour" rather than to "antisocial behaviour", as "antisocial behaviour" is seen as being slightly pejorative. Those are the proposed changes around injunctions.

The second part of the Bill proposes enabling absolute grounds for possession of a social home. This specifically applies to social landlords and would streamline the process for a social landlord obtaining an order for possession in cases where there is a previous court order, without having to prove the case again in another court. For example, instead of needing to bring witnesses to obtain the order for possession, landlords could refer to what was decided by a previous court and use that. We again emphasise that possession is always a last resort for social landlords; there is a series of measures that they will take as they are dealing with antisocial behaviour or unacceptable behaviour, and they will always go through those measures before getting to the point of seeking possession of the property. Members may also wish to note, as is set out in the briefing paper, that that does not change a landlord's powers to seek possession; it is an attempt to expedite the process a little bit and to take some of the pressure off social landlords and, potentially, witnesses.

The third group of changes is to eligibility in respect of homelessness decisions and social housing allocations, which will enable the Housing Executive, as the manager of the waiting list and the statutory body with the homelessness duty, to take a decision when the most serious unacceptable behaviour indicates that somebody is not suitable to be a tenant. The provision clarifies that a decision can be made by the Housing Executive at any stage up until the granting of a tenancy, rather than, for example, at the time at which somebody first presents or at the time that an initial decision is made. It is to avoid cases of tenancies being granted to individuals who have been engaged, on a recent and ongoing basis, in the most serious unacceptable behaviour. We again emphasise that this is about looking at whether somebody's recent and ongoing behaviour is serious and having an impact on other people. These proposals were subject to consultation as part of the fundamental review of social housing allocations and received high levels of support. We have engaged extensively with social landlords and tenant representative groups, and they have indicated that they think that the proposals will help to address their concerns that antisocial behaviour is not currently being dealt with as effectively as it could be.

Those are the provisions of the Bill. We recognise that there is a tight time frame for getting legislation through in the remainder of the mandate. We are keen to engage with the Committee as the Bill is finalised and prepared for introduction. We are happy to take your questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you, Heloise. A couple from me, and then I will come to members. What evidence does the Department have that the core problem is the current legal threshold, rather than inconsistent use of the powers that are already available, given that fewer than 10 injunctions have been granted in the past five years?

Dr Brown: The evidence is partly that the Housing Executive is reporting that it finds it very difficult to do the work to bring the level of evidence that is required to successfully obtain an injunction. Its effort is going on meeting the legal threshold, rather than on being able to intervene early to address the behaviour. We can look at what is in place in other jurisdictions. In England and Wales, for example, similar changes have been introduced to injunctions as are proposed here, and it has been seen there that local authorities have been able to use those and bring them forward more effectively. It is still for the court to make the decision, but the local authorities are able to intervene earlier in the process, which is helpful.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I understand that these can be vexatious issues and that they can create significant problems for people and, indeed, communities. However, there is also an imperative here around human rights. When it comes to lowering the threshold for injunctions from behaviour that is causing, or is likely to cause, nuisance to the proposal of merely "capable of causing nuisance", what safeguards will be in place to ensure that that power is not used disproportionately or too early? What discussions have taken place with the Human Rights Commission to ensure that it is content that this is compliant with human rights?

Dr Brown: I can certainly check the Human Rights Commission's input. I do not know whether it responded to the consultation; I do not think that it did. Certainly, all those changes that relate to decisions that are made by the courts will take into account the obligations in the Human Rights Act 1998. That is why the proposal is to bring it to the court for a decision. The court will balance the human rights of the person who is having the injunction brought against them against the impact that their behaviour is having on someone else. It is very much about keeping that decision in the courts to decide, in order to address the human rights concerns around making an injunction.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Given that rights are so centrally involved, both for communities — I stress that again — and individuals and families, is it not unusual that the Human Rights Commission was not central to the drafting?

Dr Brown: We certainly engage as we need to in the drafting of proposals. There has been a lot of engagement with the Department of Justice, which is, obviously, very familiar with the human rights element of changes to those types of powers. We were really hoping to use the early introduction and discussion of the draft Bill for that. If you think that it would be useful for us to speak to the Human Rights Commission, we are happy to take that away and do that, and to report back as we go on.

Ms K Armstrong: I have a few questions. If you bear with me, I will try to get through them quickly. "Unacceptable behaviour" is a divergence from "antisocial behaviour". Who will determine what "unacceptable behaviour" is? Paragraph 8 of the paper states that "unacceptable behaviour" would:

but what is unacceptable to me could be a very different thing to someone else.

Dr Brown: Some of that is in the nuance of the proposed wording. It is behaviour that is:

rather than just "causing" —

so you need to have evidence that somebody has caused it. There is an emphasis on proof. Stephen, you can come in at any point if you want to. It is removing the requirement for proof of the significant risk of harms. There is a slight movement away from proof, but there is the court's scope to decide whether the behaviour is actually causing nuisance or annoyance at present or there is significant risk of harm. It brings the court more —.

Ms K Armstrong: I am just worried, for example, that we have had — bear with me — flags flown on lamp posts. Quite often, the police say, "We are not doing anything with that, because it will kick off community unrest". That is a potential cause. I am worried about instances, as we have had before, when somebody has a different skin colour or is assumed to be an illegal immigrant and things like that. Would they be considered to be causing the harm? Would they ever fall foul of that reference? I do not know who decides what is "unacceptable behaviour". It is quite emotive.

Dr Brown: It is. Stephen, do you want to come in on the detail of that?

Mr Stephen Baird (Department for Communities): I take it that this is in the context of the injunctions? Yes. Well, it is a court decision, essentially. The court will not order an injunction unless the court believes that the application meets the threshold. That is a decision for a judge. It is not a decision for landlords or their staff.

Ms K Armstrong: OK. It does not mention data or data sharing anywhere in this. In my constituency, a significant amount of antisocial behaviour has been caused by proscribed organisations and paramilitaries. The Housing Executive could not, or would not, share the information with the housing association. That made it a much more long-drawn-out process. It was actually the police who, under the term, "may provide information", were able to move that on a lot quicker for the benefit of everyone involved. Is there anything that is going to be within the proposed legislation that enables data sharing and takes away that gatekeeping role?

Dr Brown: Not specifically within this. We are obviously aware of those issues as well, because they were raised with the Department. It is certainly an area that we thought had been addressed with previous legislation that gave the power to share data. I think that GDPR came after that legislation, and that has caused nervousness among organisations. We are working with those organisations and all the housing associations who are speaking to the Housing Executive. They are speaking to the PSNI and keeping the Department informed about how that is progressing. We want to get to the point when they feel that they are getting the right information, and we feel that there is a clear provision in the previous legislation for that. It is just that everybody has reassessed the issue of data sharing after GDPR, so we need to get them through that process so that they are getting the data that they need. They should have it, because they are going to be the landlord. If they are discharging the statutory homelessness duty by allocating somebody a housing association, they still need to have the information that they should have. It is not in the Bill, but it is something that we are regularly engaged in.

Ms K Armstrong: That is very helpful. I have been speaking to Housing Rights, which raised a concern, given the evidence from England. Is the Department content that positive requirements, for example, if someone is deemed to be causing unacceptable behaviour —. There has been an issue in England where not enough money was being invested in those positive actions being taken with a person. We see all the time that not enough money is going into Supporting People. Also, we have the lowest-paid front-line workers dealing with difficult and complex cases. Are you confident that there will be enough money to deal with someone causing unacceptable behaviour, and that, if it involves a third party such as Supporting People, that it will be invested in enough to deal with those issues?

Dr Brown: With regard to the Bill, it is very much for the court to be sure, when it makes a requirement, that that requirement can be met, so there will be provision in place for that support.

Ms K Armstrong: Is that coming from the Department for Communities or the Department of Justice?

Dr Brown: I assume that it is coming through Supporting People, as you say — that route. The numbers at the moment are very small. When we are looking at 10 to 20 people, even if that increased —.

Ms K Armstrong: Sorry, are those Housing Executive figures, or housing associations as well?

Dr Brown: Those are Housing Executive figures. I do not know of any in housing associations. We can check whether there have been any, but my assumption is that the housing associations have not brought any injunctions.

Ms K Armstrong: They have. They removed them out of my constituency; they had to. So there have been others.

Dr Brown: The Housing Executive is responsible for Supporting People, so if the number of positive requirements went up, we would certainly expect that we would be able to facilitate those within the Supporting People programme.

Ms K Armstrong: The Chair raised the issue of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the current existence of a means to grant possession, which balances the weight of evidence against article 8 and article 6 regarding human rights. That makes it quite complicated. Are you satisfied that the proposal is legislatively competent and that there is a risk that vulnerable individuals can more easily enter chronic homelessness, where they will be at further risk of antisocial behaviour escalating?

Dr Brown: There is a balance between engaging with somebody so that they realise that their behaviour is having an impact — that is why there is a very, very graduated process of engagement by landlords — and having a deterrent so that there is a consequence if they do not engage. There is a bit of a balance there, and that is where support is important. That has come in in Scotland and England. There are issues around resources, but we want to target resources towards supporting individuals who are causing wider issues in communities. It is about getting a balance between the impact for that individual of that action —.

Ms K Armstrong: Does that mean that, if somebody is at risk or being investigated about unacceptable behaviour, there is an interim period when they will not be removed from being provided with housing or having full duty status?

Dr Brown: Eligibility will depend on recent behaviour. The way the Housing Executive operates at the moment is that somebody can re-establish their eligibility if they are told that they are not eligible because of antisocial behaviour. If there is no further unacceptable behaviour over a period of time, the Housing Executive can look at their case afresh and decide that they are eligible. That would still be the case. These two measures between them would allow for recent behaviour to be taken into account when a decision is made but also, if there is further behaviour after the decision, that decision can be changed. It is a way of keeping people engaged with support and requirements to improve their behaviour where it is the most serious. Again, these are not the light elements of antisocial behaviour; they are the more serious areas of concern, such as, for example, where somebody has caused serious damage to property, and therefore a landlord has a concern about putting them into a home where their mental health would cause them to do further damage. It is very much about getting the balance when it comes to requiring support.

Ms K Armstrong: Data sharing is key in that, because gathering the evidence will require it. If someone has been removed from a Housing Executive home and is not getting a housing association home, and they are in the private rented sector, where do you get that data? They are not required to hold it. I am just worried that there are cases of people who have had illnesses or breakdowns and where damage has been caused. They get the right medication and support, and they are OK, but how long will that shadow fall over them? Thank you very much, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I will pick up on that. Heloise, you mentioned the Department of Justice and the courts a few times. What indication have you had from the Department of Justice that it is confident that this new lower level will be enforceable? Indeed, is there any precedent for the definition of the concept of "acceptable behaviour"?

Dr Brown: It is defined in the legislation as conduct that is "causing nuisance or annoyance" and acts of waste or neglect. "Antisocial behaviour" as a term does not really appear in our housing legislation, which it predated.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): To be clear, however, we are moving from "antisocial behaviour" to the new term of "acceptable behaviour", which includes that it is likely to or may cause harm.

Mr Baird: There is no single legal definition of "antisocial behaviour" or "unacceptable behaviour". Those terms are defined in legislation for the purposes of various legal provisions in relation to possession, injunctions, eligibility and so forth. Each of them has their own legal definition.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Thank you. Has DOJ indicated that it is satisfied that, when it gets to that length, it can address it?

Dr Brown: Certainly. The proposals were developed in discussion with DOJ at a joint working group. The public consultation was a joint public consultation on a number of other measures as well as the ones in the Bill. We are doing further engagement with the Department of Justice, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and some of the other Justice arm's-length bodies to confirm that they are happy with the provisions in the Bill. That is ongoing.

Mr McHugh: Tá fáilte romhaibh.

Again, it is this whole "unacceptable behaviour" thing. Stephen, you said that there will be a definition in the legal system itself, but I am not that confident that it will be that clear to all to the extent that it ensures that people are not victimised, in a sense, because of what might be deemed to be "unacceptable behaviour". Are you concerned that the Bill will unfairly target vulnerable people? In what way will the Bill be a deterrent to anyone's behaviour? I assume that unacceptable behaviour or antisocial behaviour have to be over a period of time rather than being a one-off reaction in a certain situation. Again, are there safeguards in place to ensure that landlords do not abuse their power? I know that I am posing three different questions or three different scenarios, but, to me, they summarise some of the difficulties with this legislation.

Mr Baird: If the Department issues guidance to the Housing Executive on how it expects the legal provisions to be operated, it will certainly be made very clear that sanctioning a vulnerable person whose behaviour is a consequence of mental health issues, for example, is contrary to disability discrimination legislation and that it must not do it. Those cases need to be treated with compassion and support rather than sanctions, which would not be appropriate and might not even be effective.

Dr Brown: I will pick up on your question about abuse of power, Mr McHugh. It would be for landlords to bring it to the court. They would still have to satisfy the court, and that is where the safeguard is. The landlord has to bring the evidence to the court and satisfy it that there is clearly unacceptable behaviour that is impacting on communities and which meets the legal definition.

Ms K Armstrong: It is about the data. If someone has a mental health condition and has not disclosed it to their landlord for fear of being removed, how does a landlord prove that if they do not have access to data, such as health records or information from a previous landlord?

Dr Brown: They generally will not have access to that information. It is very much about engagement with the tenant throughout the process of engagement and mediation.

Mr McHugh: Is there anything in the Bill to ensure that landlords do not abuse that power, even in the way that they present the case to the courts?

Mr Baird: It is important to note that what the legislation offers landlords, certainly in injunctions and orders for possession, is not so much a power; it is a facility to approach the courts and ask them to take action. The power rests with the court. It is the court that has the power to make an injunction, if it chooses, and it is the court that has the power to grant an order for possession. They are decisions for the court at the end of the day. The landlord may ask the court to do those things, but the court decides whether those things will be done.

Mr McHugh: As I say, I am sure that every MLA is aware of examples in their own areas of landlords, in order to get rid of a tenant, declaring that they will sell the property even though there might not be any truth at all in that. As soon as the tenant is forced to move out because they have been declared homeless, the property is not sold. There is an opportunity in the legislation, and, unless people ensure that tenants and themselves are safeguarded, there could be abuses.

Dr Brown: Those are big concerns, particularly, as you say, when it comes to private rented sector landlords. We can look into that more deeply as we consider the Bill. We are happy to do that and bring you more information.

Mr Durkan: I welcome Heloise and Stephen. This is important legislation, and it is therefore important that we get it right. One issue is that the proposed legislation will enable someone to be treated as ineligible for assistance on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any stage up to the point when a tenancy is granted, unless that behaviour is deemed likely to cease. I know that similar powers already exist, and you have explained why they have not been as effective as they might have been to date. Will the proposed legislation enable the Housing Executive to determine where someone might be housed, or will it just be about whether or not someone should be housed?

Dr Brown: The Housing Executive can owe a person a duty while it is making those enquiries, and, when it makes a decision, it can give them a reasonable time to make alternative arrangements. However, it would then be on the person who has been refused eligibility to make alternative arrangements. It would mean that they have to sort alternative accommodation, because they could not go on the social housing waiting list and would not be eligible for the full homelessness duty.

We recognise that that is a very serious change, and that is why the focus is very much on the fact that this is about the most serious antisocial behaviour. The two changes set out in the paper are really to enable the Housing Executive to change a decision if it needs to. It can take behaviour and other measures into account to enable it to be more inclusive when it comes to the people whom it brings in, because, if behaviour changes, it has a backstop to remove their eligibility. It should bring more people within the scope of eligibility than there are at present, on the basis that, if their behaviour changes, their eligibility can be removed. As you said, they will have to find alternative accommodation, but this is about a deterrent.

Mr Durkan: If someone guilty of unacceptable behaviour has applied — I suppose that there is a scale of unacceptable behaviour — you could say that it might not happen again. However, if they are at the top of the list for the next allocation, and an apartment or house in Albert Square becomes available, but if you move them into that house, which you have to because they are top of the list and it is the next suitable property available, they might be more likely to fall into their old ways of unacceptable behaviour. Can the Housing Executive say, "We are getting you somewhere, but we cannot put you there".?

Dr Brown: No. It would focus on the applicant's area of choice and the type of property that they need. There is no part of this that would relate to the area of choice. It is a straightforward decision on eligibility with respect to the applicant's recent and ongoing behaviour. That scenario should not be the case.

Mr Durkan: Sometimes, those issues can be mitigated just by the area that some people live in.

Finally, you referred to the effectiveness of similar changes to the threshold in other jurisdictions and cited the fact that there are now more injunctions issued in those areas. Has there been an assessment of any wider social impact as a consequence? Has there been an increase in homelessness or rough sleeping in those areas?

Dr Brown: We do not have that information, I am afraid. It is difficult to get information at a comparable local authority level that would tell us how it has worked. The injunctions are welcomed and are being used more in England than the previous forms, which would have been more similar to what we have in Northern Ireland. We do not have that data. However, we are happy to delve into the impact that it has had.

Mr Durkan: It is important to have as much information as possible to determine whether something has been successful.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you very much for your time today at the Committee. Can you give us examples of "unacceptable behaviour" versus "antisocial behaviour"? Can you give us examples of the most serious cases so that we can picture the kind of scenarios that we are talking about?

Dr Brown: It is behaviour that would meet the threshold for a landlord to obtain a possession order. That is a theoretical example. For the proposals in the Bill on eligibility, you are just looking at whether someone is eligible.

One example that was presented when we first looked at the area was somebody who had set fire to and destroyed their temporary accommodation. We will look at an example like that and say that, obviously, there is a vulnerability because most, if not all, people coming through that route will be vulnerable and may well have mental health issues, so there are obvious vulnerabilities there.

The concern for a landlord is that, if you invest in new homes and put somebody into them who you know is in a mental position where they will probably damage that home, you are entitled to a possession order because you know that they would set fire to it. That example was highlighted to us quite early on. If the damage to that home was extensive, it would not make sense to put that person in that home without their having further support or being tenancy-ready. The focus needs to be on helping people to understand the impact of that behaviour and how you can re-establish eligibility. There will be other examples.

It was quite useful in the figures that there were high levels of reports of antisocial behaviour, but a lot of them are new reports, which I would read as being relatively low level. Serious antisocial behaviours are more exceptional. Those include being a risk to people, a threat to life, a threat to your neighbour or to somebody who is coming to the house or past the house. Those are the kinds of things that would alert the landlord, who would then try to address the issue. It would make them concerned about the safety of the people in their other properties nearby or in the neighbourhood.

Stephen, do you have any examples that you want to cite?

Mr Baird: Yes. It will probably depend on the provisions in the Bill. As far as injunctions and absolute grounds are concerned, those are dealing with people who are currently tenants. The kind of anti-social behaviour involved will cause issues for their neighbours and people living in the locality. You can imagine the kind of things that we are talking about: noise, persistent parties, loud music or abuse or assault of their neighbours. It could include crime such as burglary, drug trafficking or vehicle crime — all the kinds of things that make life difficult for people living in their vicinity.

With regard to the eligibility provisions, those people are, of course, not actually tenants; they are people who are applying to landlords with a view to becoming tenants, so their behaviour has to be viewed under the legislation. It is looked at speculatively, so the landlord must consider that if that person was a tenant, would the kind of behaviour that they have been involved in be serious enough for a court to make an order for possession. That is quite a high level of behaviour, and landlords would know from experience what kind of behaviour a court would consider serious enough to order possession on.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you. That is useful. The example that you gave of a tenant setting a property on fire is probably familiar to most of us. I had a case where the property was mid-terrace and the neighbours are living in terror of that happening again and putting their lives being at risk. It is important, therefore, that the legislation is fit for purpose for the safety not just of that particular tenant but of everybody living around them. It is important that that clarity be provided. I have had constituents contact me about anti-social behaviour that might just consist of a group of kids gathering. The definition is very wide, so it is important that the words are right in law so that we can deal with those issues.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Picking up on Pam's point, there is, I suppose, also a fear. Setting fire to something is in itself a crime. The fear is that, instead of enforcing existing powers, we lower the threshold and go for something different, and I am concerned about that. I also have a concern about how to ensure that problems are not just being displaced to other areas. What measures will be taken on that? That may touch on Mark's point. How is the displacement issue being addressed?

Dr Brown: If a landlord seeks possession of the home and the tenant is evicted, they will have to find alternative accommodation, and that does displace. An injunction, if made, could still apply to them wherever they move. That is why injunctions are the key part of the Bill and the element that is most important to get right. That will be the key function in making sure that if somebody is being required not to do something or required to engage positively, that requirement is there even if they are evicted from their current property. Seeing what that could achieve, if it is done right, is the most important part.

I appreciate that lowering the threshold brings a risk, but there are very low numbers at the moment. Our sense is that there is more that landlords would tackle if they felt that putting the resources into bringing injunctions would be successful and help people to engage. It is about encouraging the tenant to engage with services that are trying to help them to change.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. Before I come to my next quick question, I probably should have declared that I am introducing a Bill on homelessness. I also declare that I own a property from which I derive a rental income.

The briefing refers to positive engagement with support or addiction services, and we are acutely aware of the strain that those services are under. In particular, there is the issue of dual diagnosis, where someone has both addictions and mental health problems. It can be very difficult to navigate that system. What happens where services do not exist to the extent where, perhaps, compliance becomes impossible for the person? What happens in a scenario such as that or what account is taken of that?

Dr Brown: The court would have to consider in the injunction what the requirements are. If it is clear that there is no service that can be provided to assist them, the court, it could be argued, should not make the requirement to engage with a service that is not available. That is why we have to bring the focus more towards services that will support people with those issues. It is about making sure that provision is available for them through Supporting People and through the homelessness services. We would need to be certain that those requirements can be supplied before they could be added to the injunction; otherwise the injunction could not be enforced.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): OK. We will go briefly to Kellie and briefly to Mark to wrap up.

Ms K Armstrong: Stephen, you said that the injunction is for an existing tenant but that a landlord will be able to take a decision on any previous evidence of unacceptable behaviour. I have a concern about children who were previously in care who have turned 18 and become adults. Every community has experience of a young fella or a middle-aged man moving in on his own and not having family around him, and, automatically, the jungle drums are saying that he is a paedophile or has just come out of prison.

Paragraph 8 of your paper says that lowering the threshold for granting injunctions will:

Is the language the sort of thing that the landlord can take into account? How could they get that evidence if the person has not been a Housing Executive tenant or the tenant of a private landlord but has come out of a care home or their family home? Where does the evidence come from if they are not already a tenant?

Mr Baird: It is likely to come from the person's history. Quite often, people who are applying for homelessness assistance have been tenants, either of social housing or in the private rented sector, and have been forced to leave that accommodation by, basically, illegal action by people in the neighbourhood who are no longer prepared to tolerate their presence, with the result that the person becomes homeless. Those people may present to the Housing Executive for assistance under homelessness legislation, but, in those cases, their record will be well known locally.

Ms K Armstrong: This could be a replacement for intimidation points. The problem with the local neighbourhood could be that the boyos just want the house for their daughter, so they say something terrible about somebody to get them out. It is the evidence that I am concerned about. Who is making the decision? It is not the courts. Who is taking that decision then?

Mr Baird: The Housing Executive will take the decision on eligibility, in accordance with the legislation.

Dr Brown: I should also say that eligibility decisions are challengeable to a County Court on a point of law.

Mr Baird: Yes, they are challengeable.

Mr Durkan: What implications, if any, are there for how we treat people coming out of prison into homelessness? Is it likely to result in changes to how the issue is dealt with?

Mr Baird: The proposals do not really affect people leaving prison because people have served a prison sentence on the basis of their behaviour in the past. These proposals are aimed at the person's behaviour at the time that the decision is taken; it is not about looking at somebody's past. It looks at what they are doing now that might make them unsuitable to be a tenant. Is there any reason to believe that that behaviour will change? Those are the issues that we expect landlords and courts to consider.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): Andy is a late indication. Andy, will you be brief, please?

Mr Allen: I will, Chair. Apologies, but my signal has been intermittent. First, I declare an interest as a landlord. Like others, I have had issues in my constituency office about anti-social behaviour and the inability to deal with it effectively. Has the Department conducted any assessment of how effective current support services are? I know that there has been a lot of focus, but there is a feeling that there is a lack of support. There has been a lot of emphasis, this morning, on supports in tenancy readiness. Has the Department conducted any assessment on how effective the current services are, and on what may be needed to increase the capacity of the services?

Dr Brown: Supporting People is the defined way to access support services, particularly for people who are homeless. That will measure outcomes on how supported people feel to live independently. We also acknowledge that there are funding issues with the Supporting People programme and the funding that is required to expand it adequately and to focus it more particularly on areas where there is growing need. The Housing Executive is working on modernising the programme and looking at the current needs assessment. That will inform funding decisions about the future of the programme.

I accept that it requires the effectiveness of support services to be there to have an impact on helping people and to make sure that the services are available to the people who need them. We are aware of that, but, as you know, we are operating in a very difficult funding environment.

Mr Allen: I appreciate that. I have a final question, Chair. There is a process in place, and then there will be the new process. Before taking forward an injunction, will there be a requirement on a landlord to set out clearly to the tenant the consequences of their behaviour and inform them that an injunction may be sought?

Mr Baird: A social landlord's method of dealing with anti-social behaviour is intended to be progressive. It works through a series of stages. You start with speaking to the tenant and challenging their behaviour; then you can issue warnings, and so forth, before moving to court sanctions, such as injunctions. If an injunction does not produce the desired effect, they may move to repossession, but that is a last resort after all other methods have been tried. Given that process, you can be reasonably confident that tenants will be aware of the consequences of their actions, as those will be made clear to them before further action is contemplated.

Mr Allen: A final one, Chair. Has any best-practice guidance been produced? I know that, ultimately, it will be up to each organisation, whether the Housing Executive or housing associations, but are you aware of any best-practice guidance on achieving a uniform approach to the issue?

Mr Baird: The Department issues detailed guidance to the Housing Executive on dealing with anti-social behaviour. I think that we are in the process of implementing that for the housing associations.

Mr Allen: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Gildernew): I appreciate your evidence. I agree with Mark that this is important legislation. These are issues that affect communities — there is no question about that. However, it is potentially intrusive legislation, and it will be hugely impactful in that sense. That is certainly something that I will be keen to understand better. I appreciate that this is part of the pre-legislative process and that you have said that there are issues that you will take on board and consider. Thank you for your attendance. No doubt, we will be talking to you in due course.