Who benefits?

The announcements were met with rapturous applause from conference delegates (HT 3 October, page 9). But what do housing practitioners and those on the front line think? Could the Field bill be resurrected – and how?

For Angus Macdonald, head of housing at Medina Housing Association on the Isle of Wight, the proposals are long overdue. "We need to support officers so that they can deal with these types of problems." But he adds that pilot exercises must be carried out to look at the practical implications of withdrawing benefit, and ministers must be clear about who decides when a tenant's behaviour has gone too far.

Medina has been tough on nuisance neighbours: it was the first housing association to secure a same-day eviction of two tenants in June (HT 27 June, page 7), and Macdonald wants to know if there will be any extra funding to take people to court. "We've spent £53,000 on nuisance cases between April and September. If we have to go to court because people who've had their benefit stopped are challenging us, this might cost us even more and we'll have to look at doing more evidence-gathering ourselves."

Richard Williams, a councillor from Southampton, also supports the benefit reduction plan: "If the government can facilitate faster justice, then the misery many people have to endure will be mitigated. If it means a reduction in housing benefit, then OK. Why should those people who play by the rules suffer at the hands of those who don't?

"If you enforce the legislation fairly and firmly, then you can deliver the changes the prime minister talked about."

Long-suffering neighbours of antisocial tenants would agree, according to tenant participation consultant Parmjit Uppal. She believes cracking down on abusive tenants is "an important part of achieving community cohesion", and therefore an integral part of the social inclusion agenda.

But the proposals, which caused a major controversy last time around, are far from universally popular. Front-line officer Alison Blackburn, a housing manager at Islington council in north London, is among those dubious about the moral implications of the bill and how it will be implemented.

Blackburn helped pioneer Islington's antisocial behaviour contracts, which are essentially good behaviour agreements, as an alternative to costly and lengthy antisocial behaviour orders. "I can't see this idea benefiting social housing providers," she says. "What is the point of putting people into debt? The emphasis needs to be on prevention and intervention. We already have powers such as injunctions and antisocial behaviour orders. The whole thing sounds fraught with difficulty. Who decides what action to take and when to take it? How do you collate information, and what evidence do you need?"

Indeed, the new legislation could become an administrative nightmare. Housing benefit is already notorious for its complexity, and the failure of many local authorities to process claims is well documented. Neil Litherland, director of housing at Camden council in north London, points out that with benefit administration increasingly separated from housing management, managers from associations would have to speak to local authority housing benefit teams in order to withdraw benefits from tenants, and would need enough evidence to do so.

He also wonders how benefit would be re-introduced if a family said they would improve their behaviour. "It sounds like the government is simply being populist. Introducing such a measure is unworkable," says Litherland. "At the end of the day, if you withdraw housing benefit, those people will still be in the properties and all that will have happened is that they have fallen into rent arrears. Withdrawing benefit is the last thing a family needs."

Concerns about the practicalities of the bill are backed by legal experts. Michael Donnellan, partner at solicitor Trowers & Hamlins, says: "There is also the question of who defines what is antisocial. If one person's interpretation leads to benefits being cut, then you are essentially pre-judging the outcome of any court action that may be taken and you are denying the tenant the right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act."

Tim Winter, chairman of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, adds: "It's just like Blair to headline something like antisocial behaviour without going into any detail. We'll have to wait to see if the proposals go as far as the first bill, but last time there was very strong opposition from all corners of the housing sector."

Lynne Jones, Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, voted against Frank Field's original proposals. She warns: "The withdrawal of housing benefit would merely pose an indirect threat to unruly tenants because landlords would still have to go through the courts to have them evicted." Jones argues that families who are unable to maintain their tenancies should be rehabilitated by having reception centres where their problems can be addressed properly.

"Taking away housing benefit is punishing tenants," says Stephen Hesford, Labour MP for Wirrel West. "I can see why it's superficially attractive, but we'll have to wait and see what the details are."

While the sector awaits details on what some are dubbing "Frank Field mark two", one thing is clear – the second bill promises to ignite as much controversy as the first.