The dangers of asbos

Antisocial behaviour is a serious subject but some of the recent debate is in danger of trivalising this while ignoring other connected issues.

Not least, it appears that the Antisocial Behaviour Bill is at the expense of the Victims and Witnesses Bill, as there will be insufficient parliamentary time for both.

The term "antisocial" is being defined increasingly vaguely and this further blurs the clear distinction between civil and criminal which is a primary objection to the concepts within the bill.

Antisocial behaviour orders, in particular, raise important issues for housing. Although they can be used against anybody, they have been overwhelmingly used against social tenants and the homeless. Action is thus disproportionately based on tenure rather than behaviour.

The disproportionate action – or threat of action – against some trivial alleged offences does not usually affect those living in other tenures. It gives judge-and-jury power to unaccountable elements who will create success on the basis of taking action against or evicting marginal cases. Registered social landlords, unlike local authorities and health authorities, are not democratically accountable.

Equality is a concept much trumpeted in social housing. But the concept of citizenship is essentially based on equality before the law and the equal protection of the law.

Conditions which are exclusive to social tenants undermine the concept of citizenship which is based on being subject to universal laws regardless of status.

There is absolutely no question that social tenants are second-class citizens until and unless human rights challenges determine otherwise which is very likely sooner or later. That may be very unpalatable to many tenants and housing professionals. But it is not an opinion. The law says so.

Social housing must now live with the consequences which cannot be wished away.