Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation Bill

This Bill was published yesterday (I’m writing this on Tuesday as off to a conference later), and this is a holding note just to explain what looks like the outstanding features of the Bill – published on Tuesday as it is a pretty big moment.  I will post on it more fully, taking individual clauses of interest (to me and anyone who is interested) when I return (but there will be a blog break on Friday and next week).  Let me know if you would like me to look at any particular clause/point of interest.  Here is my summary …

Although it is an amendment, the first point is that it seems to set a completely new direction for Wales.  It retains the core structure of English homelessness law, which is a shame, but understandable; nevertheless, it does seem to want to change the culture of denial that we too often see in homelessness decision-making, and seek to offer the wrap around service which was promised in the White Paper and other documents which underpin it.  Jayne Bryant, the Cabinet Secretary for housing and local government, issued a statement isolating what for the WG are the main points (there is a long list of bullet points), and notes that it “builds on” the White Paper and the work of the outstanding Expert Group.

The most interesting and important provisions are the omission of priority need and intentionality.  It is these provisions more than most which incite local authorities to enter into the kind of street-level bureaucracy which ends with a culture of denial operating.  There is a brilliant piece by Caroline Hunter and colleagues, for example, about how local authorities see medical evidence, and regard GPs as not providing objective appraisals but advocating for their patients.  And, as for intentionality, it was originally designed for people who might seek to take advantage of the munificence of the law – which tells you something about the coalition which produced the 1977 Act and their views about people.  It is not a provision for which I have much, if any, time (as a matter of principle, although I have to engage with it in practice), and judicial decisions have tended towards the obscure and have made it pretty difficult to interpret/work.

Other important aspects are over the changes to homelessness prevention, provisions for greater co-operation, a modulated duty to allow an applicant to view accommodation before accepting it, and a nicely framed duty to “ask and act” on public bodies.  All of these things are good.  There are also provisions specifically addressing the accommodation needs of prisoners, which is brilliant.  I suspect that is not something which will be given much publicity but given that homelessness is a cause of recidivist criminal behaviours, this is absolutely to be welcomed

I am less impressed by the wider use of local connection but I need to spend more time on those provisions than I have been able to do here.  This is not a high profile thing, but can be quite problematic, and it would be helpful to be able to reflect on that.

On allocations, the Bill enables local authorities to have qualifying criteria (sensibly, I guess, but it does have consequential implications to which I will return), although those owed a reasonable preference can’t be excluded.  That last proviso reflects a more general approach than exists in England, where the Courts have adopted quite a contorted position, so that clearer statement is to be welcomed for Wales.  I am less impressed – really quite unimpressed – by a provision which seeks to remove preference for people who manipulate the housing system.  This re-introduces the intentional homelessness wording but in relation to the allocation of social housing.  We will definitely need to return to this provision in more minute detail later.

Finally, I want to make the point that legislation does not “end homelessness”.  It can’t (unless it says it doesn’t exist).  The key will lie in its implementation and how the ideas behind the Bill are translated into everyday practices.  For example, will the increased obligations but without increasing the availability of housing, lead to undesired effects such as gatekeeping or referrals etc.  In short, are local authorities being set up to fail here (with the best possible intentions)?  I really feel for those charged with the implementation of the law, not least because the Act has become a bit of a dog’s dinner.