Punishment won't work

The plans say councils should have the power to stop giving housing money to people they believe to have committed anti-social offences, such as playing incessant loud music or drunken or rowdy behaviour.

The idea, set out in the consultation paper Housing Benefit and Anti-social Behaviour, met fierce opposition at Tuesday's Worcester City Council cabinet meeting, because it would operate outside of the courts, limiting the possibility of appeal and make the council both "judge and jury", said Councillor Barry Mackenzie-Williams.

"If there's no appeal system that is totally against the Human Rights Act," he said.

The idea of anti-social residents incurring some kind of penalty did meet with some approval from councillors.

"I don't like to see taxpayers' money going to finance anti-social lifestyles," said Francis Lankester, cabinet member and chairman of the housing board.

However, all were agreed the scheme would be counter-productive, not least because it would only target people on housing benefit.

Councillors also argued that it would be landlords who suffered, because the benefits were paid directly to them and not the tenant.

"Why not dock people's income support because that would hit the pounds in their pocket rather than the pounds in the landlord's pocket," said Councillor Simon Geraghty.

"This would be totally ineffective and totally unworkable," commented Councillor Ian Imray.

Councillors preferred a second option offered by the Government, that docking housing benefit was a power to work through the courts, although Coun Imray said it would be a slow process.

He added that anti-social behaviour orders were a matter for the police and the criminal justice system, and pointed out some of the offences listed by the Government were not only anti-social but also criminal, such as deliberate damage to cars.

The cabinet decided to include the points in a reply to the Government.