Public Disorder: Eviction from Social Housing

Baroness Hussein-Ece Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think there would be a general view among the public that those who abuse social tenancies by whatever they do should not expect to continue to enjoy the privilege of those tenancies. It is already the case that those who are subject to anti-social behaviour orders and commit crimes within their locality are subject to eviction. The consultation on this will be a discussion of whether to extend the current powers. The noble Lord asked about the circumstances of families and children. The people who do this will be intentionally homeless, but local authorities will have the same responsibilities as they have currently.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

Is my noble friend aware that only 8 per cent of people in England are council tenants? Does she think it is fair or just that council tenants accused—some have just been accused and not even convicted—of riot-related offences should be selectively punished? Is she also aware that if and when these families are evicted, they will have to live somewhere? Councils will have a duty to house them, which may cost more public money?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I think there is probably a difference between people who are paying for their own accommodation and those who are being cared for or given accommodation by local authorities at a subsidised rent. As I said in my previous answer, this is not a matter that can be dealt with at the moment because the law would have to be changed to enable people convicted of anti-social behaviour or a crime committed not within their local area to be evicted. We have seen some spectacularly dreadful sights in our country recently and it is only right that we should be able to consider whether there are other ways of dealing with this. That is what is being done.