Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 35, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"(d) formal detail of how the housing authority plans to implement and resource its anti-social behaviour strategy;

(e) relevant rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords;

(f) protocols and procedures for responding to anti-social behaviour;

(g) protocols and procedures ensuring fair and due process in responding to anti-social behaviour;

(h) protocols and procedures for evictions;

(i) ensuring a clear, independent and accessible appeals process is available to tenants who are subject to eviction procedures;

(j) appropriate protocols and procedures for meeting the accommodation needs of households who are subject to eviction;

(k) a resource plan outlining what resources will be required to service both the housing authority's capacity and delivery of the anti-social behaviour plan;

(l) a capacity building plan outlining how the housing authority intends to build its capacity to develop and deliver the anti-social behaviour plan;

(m) what services, if any, the housing authority intends to source from the professional or voluntary sector in ensuring the effective implementation of the anti-social behaviour strategy.".

This is a very substantial amendment which would insert a list of detailed provisions into the existing section 34(3). I regard this as a critical subsection. This provides that the anti-social behaviour strategy shall set out the proposals of the housing authority for achieving the principal objectives in subsection (2). At present there is a list of just three of the sort of proposals the housing authority should provide for in the anti-social behaviour strategy, and these are welcome. However, greater clarity is needed in this provision as to precisely a fuller list. We cannot provide for all the proposals but it would be a good idea to provide for a fuller list to give greater clarity for housing authorities in terms of the content and functions of the anti-social behaviour strategies they must adopt. It would be helpful to set those out in this Bill. I know the Minister of State has spoken of guidelines and I know there are local considerations and so forth, but a fuller list of criteria in this subsection would be helpful for local authorities.

I would like to see, for example, greater emphasis on early intervention and prevention within any anti-social behaviour strategy. I would like to see, as provided for here, that there would be a commitment to a clear, independent and accessible appeals procedure to be available to tenants subject to eviction procedures. Although we all accept that local authorities must have power to evict for anti-social behaviour, litigation has shown and it is clear that there must be due process observed as well as fair procedures. There is a difficulty for housing authorities if they do not have clarity on the way in which they adopt their processes and the way in which they carry out evictions. There is also a difficulty where evictions are carried out if the problem is merely passed on and if innocent members of a household are injured because an entire family is evicted for the behaviour of one member. Clearly all our interests are in trying to prevent this happening and trying to prevent anti-social behaviour. This is the reason I thought it would be useful — the Make Room coalition has informed me that it thinks it would be useful — to include a fuller list in section 34 of the proposals which a housing authority should adopt and should set out in its anti-social behaviour strategy.

The independent mechanism for an eviction process is one thing. Appropriate protocols and procedures for meeting accommodation needs of households which are subject to eviction is another of the specific provisions inserted in the amendment at (j). The reason is that all too often we see evictions occurring with the problem merely being passed on to other areas and not being dealt with. Looking at meeting the accommodation needs of households which are subject to eviction must be included in an anti-social behaviour strategy. I do not think for a moment that this is easy and I am not in any way underestimating the enormous problem this poses for local authorities. It is a very difficult task. However, I think they would be assisted with a clearer set of proposals in the legislation, to which of course they would have to add and which would have to flesh out in guidelines. I do not suggest that one could have comprehensive proposals in this subsection. The three proposals suggested in subsection (3) are almost cursory and it would be helpful to the local authorities to have a longer list and that is what my amendment provides, with the help of the Make Room coalition, which consists of organisations in the day to day business of providing accommodation.

There is a real need for a greater clarity in this provision. There is a need for local authorities to focus on getting expertise from agencies that deal with young people experiencing difficulty and people undergoing anti-social behaviour. I am not suggesting that anti-social behaviour is limited to young people. In England there have been quite high profile anti-social behaviour orders, ASBOs, imposed on older people so I do not wish to tarnish young people by suggesting they are the only ones who might be subject to ASBOs.

When we talk about anti-social behaviour in a housing context, it is important we bear in mind that the anti-social behaviour of one member of a household can lead to serious consequences for the whole household. This is why we must be very careful that eviction procedures and the sort of procedures housing authorities adopt in dealing with anti-social behaviour are fair. We need to provide support and assistance to housing authorities in how they set out their anti-social behaviour strategy. This is the reason I have tabled this rather lengthy amendment. I ask the Minister of State to indicate whether he might consider adopting even some of the proposals I have suggested here.