Housing (Amendment) Bill: Consideration Stage

Executive Committee Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:30 pm on 1 February 2016.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 3:30, 1 February 2016

I call the Minister for Social Development, the Lord Morrow of Clogher Valley, to move the Consideration Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move amendment No 1. This is one of three amendments that —

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Thank you for coming in by accelerated passage. We are just taking your proposal for Consideration Stage at this point. Will you just confirm for me that the stage is moved? That is all we need.

Moved. — [Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development).]

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of three amendments that deal with the criteria for information disclosure. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendment in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clause 1. The Question is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. All those in favour say Aye.

Some Members:

Aye.

Notice taken that 10 Members were not present. House counted, and, there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung. Upon 10 Members being present —

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Disclosure of information relating to anti-social behaviour)

Photo of Mitchel McLaughlin Mitchel McLaughlin Speaker 3:45, 1 February 2016

We now come to the amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 and 3. These amendments deal with the criteria for information disclosure. I call the Minister for Social Development to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (4).

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 4, line 1, leave out "or 3". — [Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development).]

No 3: In page 4, line 2, leave out from "(convictions" to end of line 3 and insert

<BR/>

&quot;(conduct and convictions) (whether or not the order is also sought on other Grounds);&quot;. — [Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development).]

Amendment No 1 is one of three Government amendments that were discussed in some detail during the Social Development Committee's clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I am pleased that the Committee was able to support the amendments, and I thank its Chair and members for their constructive scrutiny. The amendments all relate to clause 2, which provides that certain information relating to antisocial behaviour may be disclosed to the Housing Executive and registered housing associations for certain purposes. The amendments are being dealt with in a single group.

I should first explain that the Housing Executive or a registered housing association can apply to the court for an order for possession of a secure tenancy where certain statutory grounds apply. Ground 1 relates to breach of a tenancy agreement. Ground 2 relates to conduct causing nuisance or annoyance and convictions for certain offences. Ground 3 relates to acts of waste, neglect or default that have caused the condition of a property to deteriorate.

Clause 2, as introduced, would have allowed any person to disclose to the Housing Executive or a registered housing association information relating to behaviour that would be grounds for possession under grounds 1, 2 or 3 where the information is disclosed for the purposes of applying for, or deciding whether to apply for, orders for possession on those grounds. The purpose of clause 2 is to facilitate the disclosure of information to the Housing Executive and registered housing associations to enable those landlords to take appropriate action to deal with antisocial behaviour.

The clause therefore made specific provision that, in relation to applications for orders for possession on ground 1, information could be disclosed only where the breach of tenancy agreement involved behaviour causing annoyance or nuisance. However, the Social Development Committee took the view that any application for an order for possession that relates to any description of antisocial behaviour can be made under ground 2, and that it is not necessary for clause 2 to provide for the disclosure of information relating to any other grounds. I accept this view and have therefore tabled amendments that would remove the references to grounds 1 and 3 from this clause.

Amendment No 1 would remove the provision that information that indicates or suggests that the condition of a dwelling has deteriorated owing to acts of waste by, or neglect or default of, certain persons is &quot;relevant information&quot; that may be disclosed to the Housing Executive or a registered housing association.

Amendment No 2 would remove the provision that applying for, or deciding whether to apply for, an order for possession on ground 3 is a "relevant purpose" for which information may be disclosed to the Housing Executive or a registered housing association.

Amendment No 3 would remove the provision that applying for, or deciding whether to apply for, an order for possession on ground 1 is a "relevant purpose" for which information may be disclosed to the Housing Executive or a registered housing association, while ensuring that applying for, or deciding whether to apply for, an order for possession on ground 2 will still be a "relevant purpose" even if the order is also being sought on other grounds.

Photo of Alex Maskey Alex Maskey Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for moving the Consideration Stage this afternoon and for his comments so far. The Committee for Social Development welcomed the Bill and noted that it encompasses three key areas, as the Minister outlined.

They are the sharing of information relating to empty properties; the disclosure of information relating to antisocial behaviour; and the registration as a statutory charge of certain loans. During the briefings and evidence sessions, stakeholders and members raised a number of issues about the Bill.

We have voted on clause 1, so I move swiftly on to clause 2, "Disclosure of information relating to anti-social behaviour". The Committee report deals with a number of issues on the clause, and I will deal with a couple of them now. The Committee considered stakeholders' concerns on the appropriateness of the information-sharing provisions that relate to antisocial behaviour and related definitions in the Bill. The Bill will introduce new powers for information sharing for the purpose of pursuing possession action in accordance with grounds 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 3 to the Housing (NI) Order 1983. The Committee agreed with the Housing Rights Service, which said in oral evidence that it believed that the definitions of "relevant information" and "relevant purpose" went beyond what was necessary. The Committee discussed that issue at length with the Department. Ultimately, the Department stated that, while the Minister did not believe that the references to grounds 1 and 3 went beyond what was necessary, if the Committee requested their removal, he would accept that in order to ensure the Bill's timely progress through the Assembly. The Committee very much appreciated that commitment from the Minister. At its meeting on 10 December, the Committee agreed that references to grounds 1 and 3 in clause 2 should be removed by way of an amendment provided by the Minister.

The second key issue that I will deal with today is the fact that private landlords will not be included under the information-sharing provisions of clause 2. The Committee was concerned that that created an imbalance and that tenants engaging in antisocial behaviour could be pushed into the private sector. While the Committee believed that there was a legitimate argument to include private landlords, it recognised the serious concerns about individual landlords being equipped or not equipped to handle personal data in accordance with data protection legislation. The Committee, therefore, decided against amending the legislation to include an enabling clause for information sharing with private landlords. Crucially, the Committee welcomed the fact that the issue had been well discussed with the Department and had been included in the recently launched discussion paper 'Review of the Role and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector'. In other words, members and others had concerns about this being a missed opportunity and a gap being left in the regulations process, but, given that it will be dealt with in the 'Review of the Role and Regulation of the Private Rented Sector', the Committee was content to leave the situation for now. The Committee, therefore, is supportive of the Bill and the amendments tabled by the Minister.

Photo of Paula Bradley Paula Bradley DUP

I support the amendments as listed by the Minister for Social Development. As we heard, the Bill has three aspects. While it is relatively short, it was not without debate, especially on clause 2, "Disclosure of information relating to anti-social behaviour". As MLAs, we should all be acutely aware of the impact of antisocial behaviour on our communities. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive and registered housing associations already have a duty of care to protect their tenants from antisocial behaviour as well as a duty to protect other people from antisocial behaviour caused by tenants of social housing. During 2013-14, the Housing Executive received and processed 3,206 reports of antisocial behaviour, the most common of which was noise.

As I said, the effects of antisocial behaviour have a great impact on our communities. Those who suffer most are often the most vulnerable, including older people. It most certainly causes added strain to those with poor mental health. From my constituency, I know that those living in areas where antisocial behaviour exists suffer great fear and intimidation. When I was planning to speak at Consideration Stage today, I thought about information sharing. It is good that it is becoming information sharing at this level because we already have information sharing in many social housing areas. I know, as will many MLAs here who are actively part of their community and working in their social housing areas, that a lot of information is already being shared, and they often know who people are and their background even before they move in. It is good to see that becoming an official practice instead of just being down to the jungle drums in our social housing areas.

Turning to the amendments from the Minister, I welcome the removal of clause 2(4). In Committee, we heard from many stakeholders, in particular Housing Rights, who felt that the clause could lead to persons with poor mental health being unduly penalised. It is not just about the penalties that could be imposed; there is a need for sensitivity in the disclosure and sharing of information. In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the amendments and hope that it can lead to a difference in our social landlord areas.

Photo of Dolores Kelly Dolores Kelly Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will be brief, given that colleagues have covered most parts of the Bill and said much of what needs to be said. Ms Bradley eloquently talked about the issues facing us as MLAs. Antisocial behaviour is, without doubt, one that comes across our desks day and daily.

I welcome the amendments and thank the Department for having listened to and worked with the Committee to produce a better Bill that reflects the concerns that have been raised by a number of stakeholders. I support the amendments and look forward to the Bill progressing.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

I and my Ulster Unionist colleagues also continue to support the Bill, recognising the benefits that it can bring in addressing community issues that arise as a result of empty homes and antisocial behaviour. Sharing information on vacant properties between the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Department for Social Development and the Housing Executive will, I hope, mean that antisocial behaviour can be headed off at an earlier stage and that concerns can, therefore, be addressed, minimising disruption to neighbours.

The sharing of specific information on antisocial behaviour will help to better manage such situations and hopefully address issues earlier. There was a situation in the Monkstown estate a few months ago that could have been addressed earlier if the information had been shared. The Bill will, when it comes into effect, bring about some practical benefits.

Clause 2 deals with the disclosure of information relating to antisocial behaviour, particularly the sharing of information between the Housing Executive and social landlords. I would have thought that sharing that information should enable social landlords to be better aware of difficulties that have caused annoyance and a nuisance to neighbours, such as where a tenant had previously been involved in a dwelling that was being used for illegal purposes or had allowed or incited others to engage in antisocial activity. I welcome and support that aspect of clause 2.

As others have indicated, there was some discussion of how widely the information should be shared. In principle, it should be widely shared so that private landlords are aware of what they might be taking on. However, it was pointed out to us that there were issues regarding data protection and data security, because information falling into the wrong hands could endanger individuals. That being the case, I am content with the general wording of clause 2.

Amendment No 1 would take out clause 2(4). The Housing Rights Service expressed concerns and asked whether it was necessary or went beyond what was necessary to address antisocial behaviour. We are dealing with a Bill that is trying to address empty homes and antisocial behaviour. The Committee relayed the concerns of the Housing Rights Service to the Minister, who has, ultimately, tabled the amendment. Having reflected further on this area and on clause 2(4), I ask the Minister what is wrong with sharing key information if someone has carried out an act of waste or has damaged public property, whether it is a Housing Executive property or a housing association property.

I think that if a tenant is moving to a different landlord, it would be appropriate, where there has been a difficulty, to pass that information on with a constructive mode in mind so that the new social landlord will know that they will need to take particular care of the tenant to ensure that no further acts of waste might occur in the new social housing property. I seek an explanation from the Minister as to why he thinks that it should be removed. He and his officials have not made much of a defence of that area when questions have been posed. It would be helpful if we could have that.

I turn now to amendment Nos 2 and 3, which refer to clause 2(8). Again, if those amendments go through, it will remove the ground 1 and ground 3 aspect of transferring relevant information. That is another area on which the Housing Rights Service expressed concern. If you wanted to put it under a heading of "antisocial behaviour", I can see how it may not be seen as antisocial behaviour that is affecting others, but it is certainly antisocial behaviour affecting a publicly owned property. I seek an assurance from the Minister that if he moves amendment Nos 2 and 3, resulting in the removal of this area of information that can be transmitted, he is satisfied that adequate powers will remain to ensure that those who damage public property will be identified, and that that warning signal will be transmitted to the new landlord so that more regular inspections can, perhaps, occur to allow a new tenant to get off to a positive start in their new property, not be carrying any legacy from the past and making sure that previous difficulties will not be repeated.

Other than that, I am generally satisfied with the Bill; it has brought about improvements elsewhere. The registration as statutory charge of certain loans is new to Northern Ireland and may enable further innovative forms of support that might not otherwise be available. I am supportive of the rest of the Bill and the clauses.

Photo of Stewart Dickson Stewart Dickson Alliance 4:00, 1 February 2016

I too support the Bill and, indeed, welcome it back to the House. As Members have heard, it is a short but important piece of legislation. I note that most of the information-sharing has been limited to the Housing Executive. Although, on principle, that does not present me with concerns, it is important that there are synergies between the relevant parties and the property users to ensure that those who need, and should have, access to such information can obtain it in an easy, timely and efficient manner. That includes working effectively with housing associations and local government, which is, unfortunately, often forgotten in a top-down process. The Bill will also create a duty to do so.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

I note with interest that DSD intends to work with councils to provide information, where possible. However, without meaningful regeneration powers, the role of local government is rather limited. It is disappointing that the Department decided to drop the entirety of the Regeneration Bill. Most of this information will originate from DFP, but, at Committee Stage, it was suggested that utilising the resources of Land Registry could provide considerable benefits with regard to information collected. We were told that DSD would explore that option, so perhaps today the Minister could provide us with further information on whether that may be a viable way forward and whether he would require further legislation in that respect.

As others said, antisocial behaviour is a very difficult issue and is a scourge on many communities. The Bill is a step forward, although I think that I have to share some of the concerns voiced by the Housing Rights Service to the Committee regarding the relatively wide scope of incidences in which disclosure could be made. The Alliance Party is generally content to support the Bill at this Stage. We look forward to its coming back.

I apologise to the House and the Minister because I have another meeting to attend and will not be able to remain for the remainder of the debate.

Photo of Lord Maurice Morrow Lord Maurice Morrow DUP

I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate on the amendments. As I explained in my earlier remarks, the amendments had been agreed by the Committee and will ensure that clause 2 is focused on conduct that constitutes antisocial behaviour as the term is generally understood. I noted that some Members focused on the antisocial behaviour aspect. It is right that that should be done. Some have also noted that, while this is a small, short Bill, it is nevertheless a very necessary one. I welcome those remarks.

In response to the question that Mr Beggs posed regarding information about acts of waste being shared between social landlords, I will just say that the Housing Executive's role in allocating all social housing and assessing individual eligibility for such housing means that the issue would be addressed when tenants are transferring to other social landlords. I hope that that goes some distance to reassuring him.

I will close my remarks by, again, thanking the Committee for its work on the matter and all those Members who have spoken today.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 4, line 1, leave out &quot;or 3&quot;. — [Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development).]

Amendment No 3 made:

In page 4, line 2, leave out from &quot;(convictions&quot; to end of line 3 and insert

<BR/>

&quot;(conduct and convictions) (whether or not the order is also sought on other Grounds);&quot;. — [Lord Morrow (The Minister for Social Development).]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

Photo of John Dallat John Dallat Social Democratic and Labour Party

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.