A Matter of Choice? Policy Divergence in Access to Social Housing Post-Devolution

Tamsin Stirling and Robert SmithCentre for Housing Management and DevelopmentDepartment of City and Regional PlanningCardiff University

Paper presented to Housing Studies Association ConferenceHousing Policy for the New UKUniversity of York, 3-4 April 2002

Introduction

The first term of a returning Labour government (1997-2001) has given few indications of Labour's intentions either to radically alter the main tenets of UK housing policy put in place by its Conservative predecessors or to significantly increase public investment in housing (Malpass and Murie, 1999). Although we haveseen a number of shifts in the detail of housing policy and new initiatives, New Labour under Tony Blair has continued with much of the housing policy agenda pursued by the Conservatives. However, as Kemp (1999) has noted, Labour have focused their attention on developing policies which seek to ‘join-up’ specific aspects of policy to tackle social exclusion, promote regenerationand create sustainable communities (Social Exclusion Unit, 1998; 2000). In some ways, the UK government’s desire to encourage policies which reflect what Maclennan (2000) has termed ‘cross sectoral awareness’, and which emphasises joined-up horizontal policymaking, as well as the importance of the neighbourhood or the community as the level at which public policies need to be implemented effectively, reinforces the view that the UK no longerhas a distinctive set of exclusively housing policies (Bramley, 1997; Malpass, 1999).

Others have argued that the publication of a Green Paper on housing policy in April 2000 (DETR, 2000a) can be seen as indicating the re-emergence of housing as an issue worthy of the attention of central government (Cowan and Marsh, 2001). Similar concerns in the devolved administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh,with the development of a National Housing Strategy for Wales (NAW, 2001a) and the passage of a Housing Act for Scotland, would suggest that housing policy has risen on political agendas, whilst

1

within the UK, the nature of housing policy is becoming more diverse as a result of constitutional reforms. Thus housing policy has been revived, whilst at the same time decentralised, with opportunities for greater variation in the approaches which are taken to specific aspects of policy.

This is not to suggest that housing policies alone offer solutionsto broader and deeper seated problems such as social exclusion andneighbourhood regeneration. Housing is a central focus for community life, and the ways in which housing policies operate at the local level can have significant impacts upon patterns of residential mobility, household relationships and the access whichhouseholds enjoy, (or not, as the case may be), to other services and opportunities. The purpose of this paper is to look at how policies in relation to the state’s responsibilities for the homeless (amongst the most vulnerable and needy in society), and the ways in which social rented housing might be allocated, are being developed in England, Wales and Scotland. All three political administrations are committed to offering more protection to vulnerable homeless people, and giving more flexibility to social landlords to assist the homeless, and not merely those in priority need. At the same time, there have been proposals to encourage applicant choice for those seeking access to social housing (DETR, 2000b; NAW, 2001a), so that lettings policies, whilst still underpinned by notions of relative need, might better reflect consumer preferences, make the best use of the available housing stock and help create more sustainable communities.

Before we examine either the issue of access to social housing andthe treatment of homeless priority groups, or the development of policies for choice-based lettings in different parts of Britain, it is important to set the changing context of the supply of and demand for social rented housing.

Britain’s Social Housing Sector

Local authorities across Britain own and manage around 3.8 milliondwellings, about 5.6% of the total dwelling stock. However, whilst the proportion of the total stock in Wales in the council sector reflects this average, in England less than 15% of dwellings are in the public sector, whereas in Scotland council dwellings still make up more than a quarter of the housing stock (Wilcox, 2001). Housing associations collectively manage a

2

further 1.4 million dwellings (5.8% of the total stock), although in this sector the differences between the constituent countries of Great Britain are less marked, though only 4% of the Welsh housing stock has been provided by housing associations. However,the local authority housing stock has been in decline since the late 1970s, whilst the housing association sector has grown; trends which are likely to continue not only as a result of the profile of new developments, but also as a result of housing salesand stock transfer.

Despite the overall decline of the scale of the social rented sector, evidence suggests that the annual number of lettings to new tenants has remained relatively constant (Pawson, 1998). Lettings to new tenants by local authorities in England in 1999-2000 totalled 236,000 - a similar figure to 1988-89, and not much less than the 255,000 reported in 1983-84. Welsh local authorities made over 15,000 new lettings in 1999-2000 compared with just 14,000 in 1980-81. The picture is similar in Scotland with just over 45,000 new local authority lettings in 1998-99, against just under 46,000 in 1984-85. In England housing association lettings to new tenants almost trebled over the period1980-81 to 1999-2000, reaching a level of 123,000 in the latter year (Wilcox, 2001). However, there were differences between England, Wales and Scotland in the proportion of new tenants who had been rehoused through the homeless route. In England this hadrisen from 19% of new local authority tenancies in 1982-83 to a high of 46% in 1991-92, declining to 25% in 1999-2000 (with generally lower proportions of new housing association lettings going to homeless households – 13% in 1999-2000). In Scotland 13.6% of new local authority lettings had been made to homeless households in 1984-85, rising to above a fifth during the 1990s (21.2% in 1998-99). However, in Wales the proportion of council lettings to homeless households, whilst rising during the late 1980s and early 1990s to a high of almost a quarter had fallen to just 9% by 1999/2000 (Wilcox, 2001).

Of course, whilst the debates about recognising the requirements of individual households who are homeless and in priority need have gone on, and the debates around lettings have been in respectof giving applicants more choice, reducing bureaucracy and encouraging better use of the existing housing stock and developing sustainable and more balanced local communities, these too have to be seen in a wider context. Recent housing policy debates have been dominated by evidence of an increased need for

3

additional affordable housing nationally (Kleinman et al, 1999; Holmans, 2001) alongside changing demand for housing in particularlocalities, with evidence of low and falling demand for social housing (Murie et al, 1998; Lowe et al, 1998; Holmans and Simpson,1999; Niner 1999). Whilst this has been particularly pronounced in parts of the North of England (Cole et al, 1999; Power and Mumford, 1999; Nevin et al 2001), these same issues have also beenmuch in evidence in parts of South Wales (Inkson, 1999; NAW/CIH inWales, 2000; NAW 2001b; NAW 2002). The issue of changing demand for social rented housing is affecting every landlord and every locality to a lesser or greater extent, although as we shall attempt to show in this paper, policy responses, particularly in terms of the development of policies in respect of access and the letting of social rented housing, are being varied across different parts of Great Britain.

Accessing Social Housing: the current situation in England and Wales

Access to social housing is primarily through two routes: via a local authority or RSL housing register or list, or an acceptance as statutorily homeless by a local authority leading to an allocation of local authority accommodation or a nomination to an RSL. This section considers the current situation in relation to housing registers and homeless priority need groups in England andWales. Subsequent sections examine Scotland and the changes whichare imminent in all three countries.

For local authorities in England and Wales, the Housing Act 1996 introduced the concepts of qualifying persons and the statutory housing register, the register comprising all qualifying persons from which allocations can be made. Regulations relating to immigration and asylum status determine who cannot be qualifying persons; beyond this, local authorities have local discretion to determine further categories of non-qualifying persons, ie to exclude groups of applicants with certain characteristics from their housing registers.

This discretion to exclude applicants does not apply to homeless households accepted as being in a priority need group (and unintentionally homeless). Such households must be placed on the housing register of the relevant authority, or referred to anotherauthority with which the individual/household has a local

4

connection. Under Section 189 of the Housing Act 1996, a person is in a priority need group if s/he:

is pregnant or is a person who lives with or might reasonably be expected to live with a pregnant woman

has dependent children living with him or her or who might reasonably be expected to do so

is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental health problems, mental handicap, or physical disability, or any other special reason or is someone with whom such a person lives or might reasonably be expected to live

is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster

Performance standards for RSLs in England state that they should avoid restrictions on access to their housing which are irrelevantto housing or support needs (Housing Corporation, 1997). In particular, discrimination against applicants on low incomes, requirements to pay deposits and residential qualifications are not acceptable. However, in defined circumstances, it is acceptable to impose certain restrictions on access to RSL housing, for example, where there is proven evidence that, in the last two years, the applicant breached the terms of a tenancy for which there are statutory grounds for possession, or committed acts of physical violence against staff or other residents.

Similarly, in Wales, RSLs are expected to operate open, up to datewaiting lists for direct applicants and transfer applicants and not impose unnecessary restrictions on access to their housing, including financial requirements or residency qualifications (Tai Cymru, 1997). However, RSLs can exclude from their lists, or consider for shorthold tenancies only, various categories of applicant, for example, those who, in the last five years, have been evicted by any RSL or local authority for breach of tenancy.

The statutory and regulatory framework in England and Wales therefore permits local authorities to exclude groups of individuals and RSLs to exclude groups of individuals and/or individuals from their housing registers or lists. The extent to which local authorities and RSLs in England and Wales have actually done this varies significantly. Research carried out in England during 1999-2000 found that, of 65 local authorities and RSLs, only four had totally open housing registers or lists (Smithet al, 2001). The most common reasons for exclusion were, for

5

local authorities, lack of a local connection and unacceptable behaviour during a past tenancy, and for RSLs, debt arising from existing and previous tenancies. In Wales, a review of exclusionspublished for consultation by the National Assembly, found that rent arrears and anti-social behaviour were the most common reasons for exclusion (Kent, 2001). The research concluded that, while most organisations were responding appropriately to local circumstances, there were also cases where responses appeared to be based on assumptions rather than sound analysis. Examples werecited as varying lengths of exclusion and differences in responsesto general waiting list applicants and those coming through the homeless route.

Alongside the use of exclusions is what may appear to be a contradictory trend of opening up access to a wider range of applicants. Of the 65 organisations contacted as part of the English research, 40 had made changes to their lettings policies and practices and in 21 cases, this involved seeking to broaden the range of potential applicants for their housing (Smith et al, 2001). The most common method by which this was being done was advertising, with people in employment particularly being targeted.

Accessing Social Housing: the current situation in Scotland

Under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, Scottish local authorities are restricted from barring certain types of applicants from registering on any of their housing lists. When considering whether an applicant can be admitted on a housing list, factors such as the applicant’s age (as long as they are over 16), income,ownership of property, or whether the applicant is living with, orin the same house as someone whom s/he has been living as husband or wife, cannot be taken into account. Applicants from outside the area can be accepted onto a housing list if they are employed,or have been offered employment, in the area or have social, support or medical reasons for moving into the area. The regulatory framework for RSLs in Scotland states simply that RSLs should ensure equal and open access. Section 25 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 sets out priority need groups in relation to homeless applicants. They are the same as those in place in England and Wales.

Thus the legislative framework restricts the scope for exclusions policies, but does not entirely prevent or outlaw it. Despite

6

differences in the legislative framework in place in England and Wales and Scotland, from which you could expect that Scottish local authorities would exclude far fewer applicants from their housing registers, it appears that local authorities across the three countries exclude applicants from their housing registers for a variety of similar reasons (debt and anti-social behaviour).A recent survey of Scottish authorities and RSLs found that exclusions were being applied quite widely (Scott et al, 2000). As in England, the most common reasons for exclusion were where people had been evicted from a previous social housing tenancy foranti-social behaviour, or had rent arrears from an existing or previous tenancy. This clearly demonstrates that policy frameworks at the national level are not the sole determinants of how policies and practices actually operate at the local level.

In Scotland, there is a clear expectation that local authorities should develop common housing registers (CHRs) with other housing providers. The Scottish Executive has set out a national framework for the development of CHRs underpinned by a successful bid for resources under the Modernising Government Fund. Over £2 million is available to support CHR development.

The key objectives of the framework are to provide support to landlords involved in developing CHRs, ensure that common housing registers are developed within a framework of best value and introduce and evaluate pilot Information and Communication Technology solutions. The practical elements of the national framework are the appointment of a National Co-ordinator and an ICT Facilitator to provide specialist support to landlords and theprovision of agreed packages of support to local partnerships to progress the development of their pilot common housing registers in Aberdeen City, City of Edinburgh, Renfrewshire, Scottish Borders, Stirling and Fife.

Imminent change: England and Wales

The Homelessness Act 2002 has recently received Royal Assent and is likely to become law in the next few months. It provides the context for the introduction and extension of choice-based lettings systems by abolishing the local authority duty to maintain a housing register, although the power to operate a register remains. In addition, the Act repeals the concept of qualifying persons, (regulations relating to immigration control

7

are to be made), and the power to make blanket exclusions, including exclusions on the basis of residence.

The Act also includes a range of provisions on homelessness, with both new duties and amendments of the Housing Act 1996. In particular it:

amends the reasonable preference categories to require that reasonable preference is given to homeless people, people living in insanitary or overcrowded housing or unsatisfactory housing conditions, people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds and people who need to move to a particular locality in the district of the authority, where failure to meet that need would cause hardship (to themselves or to others)

requires that advice and information about the right to make anapplication for an allocation of housing accommodation and the provision of assistance in making applications for those who need it, be available free of charge

sets out the right for applicants to ask for certain information

A draft statutory instrument extending priority needs groups has been consulted on by the DTLR, with the aim of introducing it in conjunction with relevant Homelessness Act provisions. Proposed additional priority needs groups are:

any 16 and 17 year old who is not a ‘relevant child’ any 18, 19, 20, 21 year old who is a former ‘relevant child’ people vulnerable as a result of having been looked after,

accommodated or fostered people vulnerable as a result of having been a member of forces people vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial

sentence, committed for contempt of court of any other kindred offence

people vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation by reason of violence from another person, or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out

The Homelessness Act 2002 will apply to both England and Wales, but the National Assembly is able to issue its own secondary

8

legislation. In March 2001, the Assembly used this mechanism to extend priority need groups to include:

any 18, 19, 20 and 21 year old who at any time while still a child was, but is no longer looked after, accommodated or fostered, or who is at particular risk of sexual or financial exploitation

16 and 17 year olds people fleeing domestic violence or threatened domestic

violence people homeless after leaving the armed forces people homeless after being released from custody

In addition during 2001, the National Assembly for Wales set up a Lettings Sounding Board to consider the future of social housing lettings in Wales (National Assembly for Wales, 2001c). As part of the work of the Lettings Sounding Board, a review of exclusionsfrom social housing was carried out, with the report and its recommendations issued as a consultation paper (Kent, 2001). The recommendations focus on the use of active, ie time limited, suspensions rather than exclusions, with policies and procedures regularly reviewed, monitoring of any exclusions and suspensions carried out and joint working promoted as a means of reducing the need to exclude or suspend applicants. A policy position paper from the National Assembly on lettings is expected in the summer of 2002.

Imminent Change: Scotland

The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 amends the 1987 Act to set out an entitlement for anyone aged 16 or over to be admitted to a housinglist. The rationale for this is that no one in housing need be excluded from a housing list and therefore ‘lost from the system’.A list is defined as either a single housing list or a CHR. Guidance on this part of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 emphasises that this right is not a right to be housed, simply a right for the individual’s housing need to be registered (SEDD Circular 1/2002).

As noted earlier, the Scottish Executive is keen to promote the development of CHRs and the Act also gives Scottish Ministers powers to require local authorities to prepare and submit proposals for implementing CHRs in their area in consultation withRSLs. This is intended for use only as a fall back position if

9

sufficient progress is not made by local authorities on a voluntary basis.

In relation to homelessness, the Act sets out a range of provisions, including stating that the local authority duty to accommodate a homeless person in priority need and not intentionally homeless continues until they are found permanent accommodation. Priority need groups in Scotland are similar to those determined for England and Wales by the Housing Act 1996.

More significant than the Act in relation to changes in definitions of homelessness is the final report of the Homelessness Task Force which sets out a 10 year action plan for the prevention of, and effective response to, homelessness (Scottish Executive, 2002). Specific recommendations are made on improving the homelessness legislation by incrementally extending the rights currently given to priority needs groups to all those assessed as homeless, eliminating the priority need distinction. The first step in achieving this is seen as extending the definition of priority need to include those who have not reached their 18th birthday, or who have experienced domestic abuse, or who are otherwise vulnerable (within the terms of the Current Codeof Guidance).

The report also recommends:

replacing the duty to investigate intentionally with a power todo so

placing a duty on authorities to allocate intentionally homeless applicants a short-term tenancy with appropriate support with a view to it being made into a secure tenancy

a suspension of the provisions whereby one authority can refer a homeless applicant to another authority where they have a local connection, with a mechanism in place to reactivate the provisions for all or some authorities if demand should prove intolerable

So far in this paper, we have sought to examine how current legislation and regulatory regimes are shaping access to social rented housing, particularly for those accepted as homeless and inpriority need and the ways in which certain households may be excluded from housing registers. We have highlighted the current arrangements in England, Wales and Scotland and how these have

10

changed and/or are set to change following political devolution. In the next section of the paper, we go on to consider the currentposition and policy developments on choice and meeting housing need in relation to letting social rented housing.

Meeting Needs vs Promoting Choice

The national framework documents for housing in England and Wales clearly refer to enabling and enhancing choice for individuals as an objective for housing policy (DETR, 2000b, National Assembly for Wales, 2001b). Much of the stimulus for seeking to give applicants a greater degree of choice in the lettings process has derived from systems of housing allocations developed in the Netherlands (and in the first instance, Delft), during the 1990s (Kullberg, 1997). What has become widely known as the Delft Model(though subsequently used extensively throughout the Netherlands),is essentially an advertising-based system of lettings, However, even those most closely associated with the Delft Model in the UK have notd that in its original guise, this is only one form of lettings policy that encourages consumer choice (Brown et al, 2000). In the remainder of this paper, we begin to examine some of the different stances on choice-based lettings present in England, Wales and Scotland.

England: Choice-Based Lettings Pilots

In England, much discussion and debate has taken place about the benefits and possible disbenefits of the Delft model which aims toshift the emphasis for applicants ‘from being points hunters to home hunters’. Rather than the maintenance of a housing register or list, the model involves open advertising of vacancies, with applicants opting into being considered for those vacancies that they are interested in and for which they are eligible. A ‘pure Delft’ model would mean that the applicant who has been registeredlongest, (or for transfers, the tenant with the longest tenancy), would be offered the property. However, there are many variationson the model, which combine time, need and other factors.

For instance, a banding system such as that used by Eastbourne District Council could be combined with a Delft approach. Eastbourne’s banding system identifies three levels of priority – deferred, live and urgent. Households in the deferred band are

11

considered to have accommodation suitable for their needs and willonly be offered accommodation if it is refused by households in the other two bands. Households in the live band are considered to be in housing need and are offered property when they reach thetop of the list. Households in the urgent band are considered to be in emergency need and are offered accommodation as quickly as possible. Offers for households within each band are determined by a date order system.

The issue of how to ensure that homeless households are not disadvantaged within a Delft framework has yet to be resolved. Methods incorporated within schemes to date include:

top slicing a proportion of vacancies for applicants with urgent needs who are then rehoused directly

homeless households being awarded time-limited priority status so that they can be rehoused via the model, or

using labelling of individual properties to set eligibility criteria for people with urgent needs

There has also been debate about practical measures to combat potential discrimination within choice-based lettings systems against BME households who are over-represented in terms of urgenthousing needs including homelessness. The ways in which choice-based lettings may discriminate against BME and/or homeless households include:

emphasis on length of time waiting for accommodation, whether for new or transfer applicants, discriminates against asylum seekers, newly arrived BME applicants and travellers

emphasis on length of time waiting means that those in the mostdifficult circumstances, e.g. homeless households, may end up with the least desirable properties because they cannot wait. BME households are over-represented amongst those in greatest need such as homeless households

if no weighting is given for living in overcrowded conditions, this could be discriminatory towards some Asian households

Practical methods are needed to prevent homeless households and those in urgent housing need ending up with poor properties in less popular areas. Methods advocated in relation to BME households include:

12

the involvement of BME organisations as partners in the development of, consultation on, and implementation of, systems

testing of each stage of the system, e.g. access to the register, distribution methods for advertisements etc, to ensure that they do not indirectly discriminate against BME households

avoidance of an over-emphasis on waiting time

the promotion of awareness about social housing targeted at groups who currently have a low take-up

the provision of clear and sensitive information to applicants provided in appropriate formats and languages, including the provision of translators for face-to-face discussions where necessary

monitoring of rehousing outcomes alongside a comparison with what the outcomes would have been under a needs-based system. Monitoring should be capable of identifying both direct and indirect discrimination

involvement of BME community organisations in monitoring and evaluation

Similar practical measures need to be considered in relation to homeless households and organisations working with them.

Support is being provided for the widespread development of a Delft approach with significant resources allocated by the DTLR to27 choice-based lettings pilots involving over 40 local authorities and 100 RSLs. Over £16 million has been provided for the two-year pilots designed to give new and existing social tenants greater choice over their housing and local authorities and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) the opportunity to test newways of doing this, while continuing to meet housing need. Pilotsare being undertaken in diverse areas, both rural and urban. The open advertising of vacancies is at the core of virtually all the pilot schemes, the sole exception being the Brighton pilot which focuses on 'better informing the consumer' - largely through the creative harnessing of ICT (DTLR 2002).

13

The pilot programme builds on the previous experience of three areas, two in England (Harborough Home Choice led by Harborough District Council and Mansfield HomeChoice , led by Leicester Housing Association), in which choice-based lettings systems basedon the Delft model were implemented in 2000 and 2001. Some evaluation of these early schemes has been carried out.

Leicester Housing Association's initial pilot of a choice-based lettings system lasted nine months (March - December 2000). The pilot was based in Mansfield and also involved Mansfield District Council and Nottingham Community Housing Association. The pilot covered 1,360 properties, all of the two housing associations' properties in the area and one local authority estate. One of thekey lessons learnt from the pilot was that there may be a tension between offering choice and balancing responsibilities to people in housing need and that the take-up and use of priority card systems needs to be monitored carefully. The new approach had resulted in a slight increase in the number of tenancies where thehead of household was in work.

The Harborough Home Search initiative commenced in April 2000 operating in a high demand area. It involves Harborough District Council and its three RSL partners, together with the Disabled Persons Housing Service. After six months operation of the pilot,there was a concern that households with priority cards would begin to dominate the process. The authority’s Housing Strategy 2000 noted that ’41 priority cards have been issued by housing advisors in response to acute housing needs and that if current trends continue households with priority cards will begin to dominate the HHS process. It is therefore important to consider and promote alternative ways of meeting housing needs of people eligible for priority cards’ (Harborough District Council, 2000). A formal evaluation of the DTLR pilots is being undertaken and although it is too early to have clear information about the impactof introducing choice-based systems, lessons are emerging from the pilots about the paramount importance of the provision of good quality information for homeseekers (DTLR 2002).

Wales: Choice and Lettings

Better Homes for People in Wales states that choice for social housing applicants should be optimised. The 2001 consultation exercise carried out by the Lettings Sounding Board sought views on

14

maximising choice in lettings, specifically asking for views on the Delft approach to lettings, common housing registers and otherways of maximising choice (National Assembly for Wales 2001a). Italso asked how choice can be maximised and social housing remain accessible to those who need it. As noted earlier, the results ofthis consultation in the form of a position paper from the Assembly is expected soon.

During 2001/02, a small number of choice-based lettings schemes and common housing register developments were funded by the National Assembly, including an extension of an early Caerphilly pilot led by Charter Housing Association.

For local authorities in both England and Wales, the Homelessness Act 2002 will provide the context for further development of choice-based lettings systems. In particular, it:

abolishes the duty to maintain a housing register, although thepower to operate a register remains

repeals the concept of qualifying persons, (regulations relating to immigration control will be made)

repeals the power to make blanket exclusions, including exclusions on basis of residence

requires allocation schemes to include a statement of policy onoffering choice or facilitating opportunity for applicants to express preferences

This legislative framework is attempting to balance need and choice. At the same time, implementation of the remainder of the Homelessness Act 2002 will mean that the number of households accessing social housing via the homeless route will increase significantly in England. An increase of approximately a third inhomelessness presentations has already been experienced by local authorities in Wales as a result of the broadening of the definition of homeless priority need groups.

Scotland: Choice and lettings

15

In Scotland, SEDD Circular 1/2002 notes that a few authorities in Scotland have expressed interest in undertaking pilots of choice-based lettings systems (Scottish Executive, 2002b). But, ‘when designing a choice-based system, it is accepted that social landlords must have mechanisms to ensure that sufficient priority is given to priority homeless and other applicants in housing need’. It notes that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 should not act as a significant constraint on the developmentof choice-based lettings systems, but emphasises that landlords must ensure that due weight is given to offering reasonable preference to certain categories of applicant – those living in housing that does not meet the tolerable standard, are overcrowded, have large families, living in unsatisfactory conditions and homeless persons.

This message is further emphasised by the Homelessness Task Force report ‘we are concerned that (choice-based lettings schemes) do not operate in ways which deny homeless people the opportunity of participating, or in ways which restrict the stock of housing available for homeless people ….. We recommend that any guidance should incorporate arrangements to prevent homeless people being disadvantaged’ (Scottish Executive 2002a).

Conclusions

So to what extent has policy in the areas of access to social housing and homelessness developed in different ways in England, Scotland and Wales; are the differences so small as to be insigificant when compared to the similarities?

In relation to local authority housing registers, clear differences are emerging. The Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 gives powers to require authorities to plan for CHRs, while the Homelessness Act 2002 removes the duty from authorities in Englandand Wales to maintain a housing register at all. In terms of who can get access to registers where they exist, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 entitles anyone over 16 to be admitted to a housing register; this is likely to result in the use of suspensions rather than exclusions. The Homelessness Act 2002 removes the right of authorities to make blanket exclusions from registers; the result is likely to be similar.

In relation to homelessness, the policy framework currently in place in the three countries is very similar; the concepts of priority need, intentionality and local connection are shared. In

16

terms of the detail, with the implementation of the Homelessness Act 2002, priority need groups in both England and Wales will encompass a greater range of circumstances than those in place in Scotland under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. However, the recommendations of the Scottish Executive Homelessness Task Force,should they be implemented, would move responses to homelessness in Scotland away from the policy framework noted above. For example, the proposals suggest that the differentiation between homeless households deemed as in priority need and those not, be incrementally eliminated. Alongside this are recommendations on changing existing policy and practice on both intentionality and local connection. Given the experience of Welsh local authoritiessubsequent to secondary legislation extending priority need groups, it could be expected that the implementation of such recommendations would significantly increase the number of households accepted as homeless.

It can be seen that the emphasis on choice, in particular on advertising-based methods of letting properties differs greatly across the UK, with a continuum – England, Wales, Scotland. In England, the DTLR’s support for choice-based systems is unequivocal, with large amounts of resources being invested. In Wales, there is a degree of support from the National Assembly andindividual housing organisations for both choice-based lettings and common housing registers. However, the National Assembly has yet to indicate its formal position on lettings policy and practice and the level of resources being invested is fairly insignificant compared to that in England at less than £200,000. Although the issue of vulnerable and homeless households having the potential to lose out in choice-based systems is acknowledged,clear practical methods of ensuring that this does not happen haveyet to be developed. In Scotland, there is greater caution about the use of choice-based lettings systems, a very clear expectationthat the people in need, including homeless people, should not be disadvantaged or discriminated against and a much greater emphasisplaced on the development of common housing registers, capable in themselves of enhancing choice.

Given that current differences in policy frameworks have not resulted in the degree of difference in practice that might be expected, e.g. in relation to exclusions from housing registers, it will be interesting to see what impact the changes made post-

17

devolution on access to social housing and homelessness will have on local implementation and practice across the three countries.

18

References

Bramley, G (1997) Housing policy: a case of terminal decline, Policy and Politics, 25:4, pp 387-407

Brown, T, Hunt, R and Yates, N (2000) Lettings: A Question of Choice, Coventry, Chartered Institute of Housing

Cole, I, Kane, S and Robinson, D (1999) Changing Demand, Changing Neighbourhoods: The responses of social landlords, Sheffield Hallam University, CRESR

Cowan, D and Marsh, A (eds.) (2001) Two Steps Forward: Housing policy into the new millenium, Bristol, Policy Press

DETR (2000a) Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All: The Housing Green Paper, London, DETR

DETR (2000b) Housing Policy Statement: The Way Forward for Housing, London, DETR

DTLR (2002) Choice-Based Newsletter Issue 2, London, DTLR

Harborough District Council (2000) Housing Strategy 2000

Holmans, A and Simpson, M (1999) Low Demand: Separating fact from fiction, Coventry, Chartered Institute of Housing

Holmans, A (2001) Housing Demand and Need in England 1996-2016, London, TCPA and NHF

Housing Corporation (1997) Performance Standards for RSLs in England, London, Housing Corporation

Inkson, S (1999) From Acute to Critical: the low demand condition in Wales, Welsh Housing Quarterly, 35, pp14-16

Kent, J (2001) Review into Exclusion from Social Housing, Cardiff, National Assembly for Wales

Kemp, P (1999) Housing Policy under New Labour, in Powell, M (ed.) NewLabour, New Welfare State? Bristol, The Policy Press, pp 123-147

19

Kleinman, M, Aulakh, S, Holmans, A, Morrison, N, Whitehead, C and Woodrow, J (1999) No excuse not to build, London, Shelter

Kullberg, J (1997) From Waiting Lists to Adverts: the allocation of social rented dwellings in the Netherlands, Housing Studies, 12:3, pp393-403

Lowe, S, Spencer, S and Keenan, P (1998) Housing Abandonment in Britain: Studies in the causes and effects of low demand for social housing, University of York, Centre for Housing Policy

Maclennan, D (2000) Changing places, engaging people, York, York Publishing Services

Malpass, P (1999) Housing Policy; does it have a future? Policy and Politics, 27:2, pp 217-228

Malpass, P and Murie, A (1999) Housing Policy and Practice, 5th edition,Basingstoke, Macmillan

Murie, A, Nevin, B and Leather, P (1998) Changing Demand and Unpopular Housing, London, The Housing Corporation

National Assembly for Wales/Chartered Institute of Housing in Wales (2000) Voids and Low Demand, Cardiff, NAW

National Assembly for Wales (2001a) Better Homes for People in Wales: A National Housing Strategy for Wales, Cardiff, NAW

National Assembly for Wales (2001b) Tenants’ Views of Social Rented Housing, Cardiff, NAW

National Assembly for Wales (2001c) Lettings Sounding Board Consultation, Cardiff, NAW

National Assembly for Wales (2002) Applying for Social Housing in Newport: perceptions, policies and practices, Cardiff, NAW, forthcoming

Nevin, B, Lee, P Goodson, L, Murie, A and Phillimore, J (c2001) Changing Housing Markets and Urban Regeneration in the M62 Corridor, University of Birmingham, CURS

Niner, P (1999) Insights into Low Demand for Housing, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Finding 739

20

Pawson, H (1998) Local authority stock turnover in the 1990s, York, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Findings 058

Power, A and Mumford, K (1999) The Slow Death of Great Cities? Urban abandonment or urban renaissance, York, York Publishing Services

Scott, S, Currie, H, Fitzpatrick, S, Keoghan, M, Kintrea, K, Pawson, H and Tate J (2000) Good Practice in Housing Management: A review of progress, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive, Central Research Unit

Scottish Executive (2001) National Framework for Common Housing Registers, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2002a) Helping Homeless People: An Action Plan for Prevention and Effective Response Homelessness Task Force Final Report, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Executive (2002b) SEDD Circular 1/2002 Housing (Scotland) Act 2001Housing Lists and Allocations, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive

Scottish Homes and Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (undated) Performance Standards for RSLs in Scotland, Edinburgh, Scottish Homes and SFHA

Smith, R, Stirling, T, Papps P, Evans A and Rowlands R (2001) TheLettings Lottery: The range and impact of homelessness and lettings policies, London, Shelter

Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, London, TSO, Cmnd 4045

Social Exclusion Unit (2000) National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal:a framework for consultation, London, Cabinet Office

Tai Cymru (1997) Regulatory Requirements for RSLs in Wales, Cardiff, TaiCymru

Wilcox, S (2001) Housing Finance Review 2001-2002, Coventry, CharteredInstitute of Housing and London, Council of Mortgage Lenders for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

21