Have a Good NEWS

The bill will change the landscape of social housing, but was achieved through

certainly not a truism that the law gives to the review as close as possible is then free from doubt - consider, for example, the law of property (Provsions multiple) in 1989, still used to invoke the provisions of the Act, the mysterious, because no one was quite sure what your field was (and subsequently proved to be the case).

However, it is a good rule of thumb that the legislation in haste and without regard to appropriate consultation will be charged in doubt - see the collapse deposit in which my colleagues in the National League s' is moved to comment to infinity. Furthermore, when legislation on almost wholesale rethinking of basic agreements on which our subject - I would not say "cheap" or free of problems, but this is not the point - not worth the total demand and discussion consultation.

Now with the introduction of the road, Bill returned to localism. There are so many things going on in this bill that the title is misleading. It is not particularly coherent or "localism", but at a much more fundamental level, the provisions of the home are changing the landscape of the "social" in social housing, as well as arts and crafts on the banks (see my comments on the so-called called "filter democratic" before a complaint can the ombudsman -. which is fair to say that I am in war)

If that were the "localism" correct, then we return to pre-1977 free for all, that (frankly) few people in power want. Then there is what can only be described as the meanders of the Housing Minister, Grant Shappa (which, if my sources are correct, are not the brightest smartie in the box). Let me pick two meandering, for instance, go to Harrogate and announced that the private rental properties must meet minimum standards before being used for homeless families, an announcement that unpicks of coalition politics with private hire and makes it look, at best, inconsistent, on the other hand, at one point said that the minimum period for holding the flexibility should be five years, dating back to the subject, has been criticized for that return (not without reason), then re-emits a project management), saying it should be five years and the minimum period of two years should be used only in exceptional circumstances.

What do we do with all this? Not be in the mood for charity, this morning, for several reasons, my opinion is that the policy of the coalition of housing is thought through very unfortunate, even the suggestion of thought can be very beneficial. But at least we would have thought they would take into account the views and opinions of local experts. Regarding the first, already mentioned in the frankly outrageous (I told you that I am not in the mood for love) that the consultation period on the document, local choices: A fairer future for housing, finished the day second reading of Bill to Parliament (January 17, 2011) and the summary of responses (leading, of course, unchanged) was not published until February 28, 2011 (see our respective discussions here and here).

In the latter case, I'm not telling my experience in these matters, but the House of Lords housing experts and too many to mention draftspersonship. They are also a body that is responsible for monitoring the proposed legislation. And they do pretty well most of the time. Yes, it can be a thorn in the government (as Thatcher would say), but also moderate and repair some pretty horrible writing (I forget his approach to the housing bill after 1996). Much of his best presentation (and, indeed, in the House of Commons) occurs in the committee stage, when the house comes down to the smallest detail.

We come now to the bill of localism. On July 20, 2011, HL committee stage the bill was completed. Within hours, the debate took place in a number of quite fundamental changes, planning (including sites for Gypsies and Travellers) in matters relating to social housing. The debate was guillotined effectively, and not considered the amendments will be discussed during the reporting phase of the bill (with a number of other changes, probably, if pressed, too), but the essential point is following provisions and changes that have a huge impact on vulnerable families and others were sent within hours.

is very difficult to disagree with the release of the press law which the Company "It is impossible for the lords of the effective discharge of its oversight function, they are forced to consider 40% of a huge bill in less than five hours. This bill contains some of the most radical reforms of housing in recent years. The government submitted for consideration of them at full speed late. "

Mrs Hanham Even
, DCLG spokesman for the House of Lords, began his response to changes grouped by homelessness, noting that "it is clearly a debate that is much longer than we have tonight. " Such was the speed with which the HL treated with the social changes that were grouped dwellings, so that the developers talked to most of the amendments before the government responded. Reading this debate, the predominant feeling is that it was high quality. And absolutely critical issues raised - the minimum fixed term, the scope of review provisions, protection of vulnerable homeless people in private rented accommodation, the filter mediator, etc.

hit me first Lord Newton commented on the consistency of the proposed local law in the context of the legislative agenda of the coalition: "I have some time may incur unpopularity in my bank made the point that we have at least three or more bills on the go at the moment: the reform of the welfare sick support the legal framework, conviction and punishment of offenders bill, and that all have an impact on different groups, including people with disabilities. It is far from clear that there has been an integrated approach to these bits legislation. "