Have a Good NEWS

The bill will change the landscape of social housing, but was made possible

Although it is a truism that the law gives to the examination as close as possible is then free from doubt - consider, for example, the Law of Property (Provsions several), 1989 , who always used to call the provisions of the mysterious law, because no one was quite sure what his field was (and subsequently proved to be the case).

However, it is a good rule of thumb that the legislation was rushed through without taking into account and appropriate consultation will be charged in doubt - consider the collapse of the security deposit which my colleagues in the National League have been moved to comment to infinity. Also, when legislation involves rethinking almost more fundamental agreements that underpin our subject - I would not say "cheap" or free of problems, but this is not the point - not worth the debate and demand comprehensive consultation.

Now, with this introduction the way back to Bill localism. There are so many things happening in this bill that the title is misleading. It's 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 buttons on the edges (see my comments on the so-called called "filter democratic" before a complaint can the ombudsman -. it fair to say that I am at war)

If that were the "localism" adequate, as we bring back to a pre-1977 free for all, that (frankly) a 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, it is the brightest smartie in the table). Let me pick two meandering, for instance, will Harrogate and announced that the private rental properties must meet minimum standards before being used for homeless families, an announcement that unpicks good policy coalition with the rent private and makes it seem, at best, inconsistent, second, said at one point that the minimum period for holding the flexibility should be five years time, has been criticized for going though (not unreasonably) and then re-emits a project management) saying he 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 various reasons, my opinion is that the policy of the coalition of housing is quite unfortunate thought through, 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 in no mood for charity) that the consultation period on the document, local decisions, a fairer future for social housing has completed days of the second reading of Bill in Parliament (17 January 2011) and the summary of responses (which, of course, no change) was not published until February 28, 2011 (see our discussions respective here and here).

In the latter case, I'm calling on 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 awful writing (can not remember its approach to the bill for housing after 1996). Many of his best moderation (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 was conducted in a series of amendments very basic planning (including Gypsy and Traveller sites) on matters relating to social housing. The debate was guillotined effectively, and not considered the amendments will be discussed during the phase relationships of the bill (with a number of other changes, probably, if pressed too), but the essential point is the provision and subsequent amendments 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 that the Company "It is impossible that Mr. effectively carry out its oversight function, they are forced to consider 40% of a huge bill in less than five hours. This bill contains some of the houses radical social reforms in recent years. The government submitted for consideration through them quickly regretted it. "

Mrs Hanham Even
, spokesman for DCLG of Lords, began his response to changes grouped by homelessness, saying "this is clearly a debate that needs much more time we have tonight. " Such was the speed with which the HL treated with adaptations for social housing are grouped so that the supporters spoke most of the amendments before the government responded. Reading this debate, the predominant feeling is that it was a very high quality. And absolutely critical issues raised - the minimum term, the scope of review provisions, the protection of vulnerable homeless people in private rented accommodation, the filter mediator, etc.