Despite many positive proposals, the Housing Bill does not quite live up to the commitment to social justice expressed in the white paper, says researcher Helen Taylor
In this article, and in my further research, I will be considering the extent to which the Housing (Wales) Bill reflects the Welsh Government’s stated commitment to social justice. I suggest that the Bill is a game of two halves: showing robust social obligations on one hand, but not going far enough on the other.
My research is a piece of applied philosophy (for which read methodologically obscure!) that uses John Rawls’s difference principle as a test for social justice in contemporary social policy. The difference principle suggests that inequality within society is acceptable if such policies allow the worst off to become better off. This allows for competition within society in terms of economic growth and wealth accumulation but not at the expense of the vulnerable.
Rawls suggest that a society is just if institutions, policies and practices are arranged so that, if there is inequality, the vulnerable, or worst off, benefit. The difference principle can therefore be used as a test on social policy to see whether it delivers social justice. I will use this test to analyse the Bill in terms of its commitment to social justice. To do this, I will contextualise the policy within the Welsh Government’s critique of welfare reform, and the characterisation of Wales as being ‘more socially just’ than England. I will also engage stakeholders in the Bill (cue offer to get involved!) to explore how far they think the Bill matches commitments to social justice, particularly as expressed in the Homes for Wales white paper. This article will use this theoretical background to give an introductory analysis of the Bill in terms of social justice.
The Welsh Government heavily criticises the UK Government’s welfare reforms. Former minister for tackling poverty, Huw Lewis, has described the reforms as a ‘social atrocity’ and they are regularly cited as ‘pernicious’ in the Siambr. A Welsh Government white paper in May 2012, Homes for Wales, problematised the issue of welfare reform in Wales and proposed the Bill as a way of mitigating its effects. These welfare reforms permeate all of the housing sector, from increased numbers of homelessness applications, to growth in the demand – unmatched by supply – for one and two bedroom homes. The Bill would therefore appear to be a perfect opportunity for the Welsh Government to provide a robust response to the policies that it so heavily criticises.
Social justice and equality
The white paper committed to values of social justice and equality, and a specific Welsh agenda for improving the sector, stating: ‘The agenda it sets out is one which is distinctively Welsh, based on our long- term commitments to social justice, tackling poverty and sustainable development.’ In fact, the term social justice was mentioned five times throughout the white paper. In the process of the Bill’s publication, social justice is not mentioned in the legislative document, the explanatory memorandum, the accompanying Homes for Wales bulletin or the minister’s written statement. Inclusion in some of these documents would perhaps have been problematic, for example there may have been issues with legal definition. But it would be appropriate for the term to be cited in others, especially with reference to the Welsh Government’s use of the term ‘wellbeing’.
For clarity, I suggest that social justice can be defined as taking actions to support the worst off in society and this can be used as a test on legislation. The rest of the article will explore applying this test to the Housing (Wales) Bill and I will argue that the Bill does not show as robust a commitment to social justice as it could have done.
Welsh Conservative housing spokesperson Mark Isherwood has described the Bill as socially-based rather than supply-based. However, it is these socially-based proposals within the legislation that I am most interested in in terms of commitments to social justice.
The Bill proposes some very positive social changes in the housing sector, for example the proposed registration of landlords and letting agents. Although controversial amongst landlords and agents, this extra regulation has been put in place to recognise the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords respectively.
The proposal for local authorities to have a duty to provide new sites for Gypsies and Travellers based on identified need is also both controversial and, in my opinion, positive. The minister, Carl Sargeant, has confirmed that this includes stopping points for those groups who are travelling. This has been introduced, again, to protect the rights of potentially vulnerable groups, and to encourage cohesion and access to services.
The ability for local authorities to charge up to 150 per cent council tax on empty homes shows a commitment to encouraging the use of properties that can make positive contributions to the communities they are in, rather than negative ones, again showing a commitment to social cohesion.
Homelessness legislation
In terms of homelessness legislation, which I would argue should show strong commitments to social justice, the legislation proposes doubling the time that a person can present as homeless to a local authority. This allows for the opportunity of sustainable housing solutions to be found before the individual reaches crisis point. The Bill also emphasises the role of prevention and extends support services to those who would not previously have been able to access them. Furthermore, the legislation commits to ending family homelessness by 2019. I suggest that these proposed changes within the Bill show a strong commitment to vulnerable groups who could be described as the least well-off in society. They are innovative and robust ideas which, I argue, show the Welsh Government at its best.
However, there are areas in this Bill where the Welsh Government does not step up to the challenge of welfare reform. I suggest that, with particular regards to homelessness policy, the white paper provided a more robust account of a Welsh approach to housing – which showed commitments to social justice – than the subsequent Bill. The housing solutions approach, outlined in the white paper and dismissed in the Bill, would have provided temporary accommodation for all who were identified as homeless with nowhere safe to stay. This framework made redundant the current tools of intentionality and priority need to recognise a need in all individuals who were without a place of safety. This would have fitted into the prevention agenda, and, as the Bill itself states, would ‘provide additional protection to people in vulnerable circumstances whilst the local authority was working to assist them, thereby reducing the risk of harm and increasing the likelihood of successful engagement with the local authority’. The Bill, however, retains the tools of intentionality and priority need in assessing homelessness applications and provides for the minister to be able to revise definitions of priority need.
In terms of family homelessness, the Bill commits to placing a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation for households with children, where they have been found ‘intentionally homeless’. However, this only applies if this is the first time the household has been found ‘intentionally homeless’ in the past five years.
I question the impact that will have in terms of really ‘making a difference’ and the broader normative implications. doubt that the children themselves have made the family ‘intentionally homeless’ and I wonder how, if they are not found eligible, this lack of duty supports the Welsh Government’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In regard to commitments to social justice within the proposals for the approach to homelessness, I suggest that the divergence from the white paper undermines the Welsh Government’s social justice commitments and the extent to which they can ‘make a difference’.
Throughout this critique of the Housing (Wales) Bill it is important to recognise the financial situation in the UK and, in particular, Wales. It is a time of financial constraint and cuts to public services, leading to renewed calls for a review of the funding formula for the devolution settlement. I welcome some of the positive steps made within this Bill and suggest that it shows the Welsh Government protecting rights and being innovative with the resources it does have.
However, I wonder to what extent it is ‘making a difference’, and whether this could have been a more robust piece of legislation with stronger commitments to social justice. I argue that there is a definite division between the policy intention in terms of social justice within the white paper and the Bill that has been published. Even with financial constraints, I agree with Plaid Cymru housing spokesperson, Jocelyn Davis, that this is a ‘missed opportunity’ in terms of robust change to the housing sector in Wales. I argue that this lack of bite within some areas of the Bill undermines the Welsh Government’s claim to the extent to which it is ‘making a difference’, and supporting its rhetoric surrounding commitments to social justice.
Helen Taylor is a PhD candidate at Cardiff University researching the Housing (Wales) Bill and social justice. She can be contacted on TaylorH16@cardiff.ac.uk or on Twitter @practademia