Peter Black and South Wales West Liberal Democrats

Debate on Intentional Homelessness

Peter Black: I propose that the National Assembly for Wales: calls on the Welsh Assembly Government to review its support for people declared intentionally homeless. (NDM3714)

Finding people intentionally homeless often exacerbates the problems of social exclusion and poverty. It makes the recurrence of homelessness more likely and, once a household is found to be intentionally homeless, it is difficult to get back into mainstream social rented housing. It does not deal with the causes of the problem, which are often rooted in complex social and personal problems, such as drug addiction, family breakdown, learning difficulties or just not being able to manage one's finances properly. Intentional homelessness frequently blocks many avenues of accommodation and narrows the options that can be used to deal with people who are already marginalised.

Evidence given to the former Social Justice and Regeneration Committee by Shelter Cymru in the second Assembly highlighted incidents in which young people were deemed to be intentionally homeless because they were kicked out of home for not being on time. In Scotland, local authorities have the power to help intentionally homeless people, rather than a duty to investigate whether a person is intentionally homeless. Intentionally homeless households in Scotland are helped to find alternative accommodation and are offered a short Scottish secure tenancy, with housing support services, for up to 12 months. Changes to this effect are advocated by the housing charity, Shelter. I hope that the Assembly Government is prepared to look at that and take on board what is happening in Scotland and the evidence gained by operating that system.

Barnardo's Cymru has suggested that intentionality should not be invoked for young and vulnerable people, who are often unaware of the consequences of their actions. That was very much reflected in recommendation 15 of the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee's report on youth homelessness, 'Everyone's Business-No one's Responsibility', which stated that the Government should examine the principles by which young people are declared intentionally homeless, and issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that unfairness and inequalities do not occur.

Decisions are not always based on whether there has been a conscious decision by the applicant to leave home, but on whether something they did or did not do led to their homelessness, whether it was intended or not. Many young people are not aware that their actions could have such consequences. Reasons can be as diverse as an inability to manage finances, behavioural issues caused by mental ill health, or a consequence of often routine family conflict. Intentional homelessness can also be used as a threat to prevent people from filling out a homelessness application.

Since the priority uses Order was brought in, a few years ago, experience has shown that local authorities are not being consistent in how they apply that Order and, in some cases, are trying to use intentionality as a means of avoiding applying it as they should. I know that the Minister has taken action on that-as have successive Ministers, in fact. However, I think that that is still going on; at least, there is still a suspicion that that is going on, which can only be dealt with by dealing with the issue itself, clarifying what intentionality means and how it should be applied.

Intentional homelessness should be part of a sustainable outcome for homeless people. By reforming the law, an inclusive approach can be taken in which people are provided with suitable accommodation. In its response to the report of the Social Justice and Regeneration Committee and in its current campaign, Shelter Cymru has made four recommendations. The first is ending unintentional homelessness for those aged under 25, which I have already referred to. The second is that the duty to investigate intentional homelessness be changed to a power, as in Scotland. The third is that the duty owed to intentionally homeless households be changed to require local authorities to ensure that anyone who is found to be intentionally homeless has access to accommodation, support and assistance. If the support works, the households may be eligible for a further tenancy, which would help many people who find themselves in that unfortunate situation. The fourth is that all these moves should be backed by a full impact assessment. However, the impact assessment should not just include the impact on the resources and capacity of local authorities and registered social landlords; it should also take account of the outcomes, such as reducing the number of children going into care, housing management and enforcement costs for social landlords, reducing crime and reoffending, and the positive health impact on people living in secure and supported accommodation.

We have had this debate since the Assembly's inception in 1999, but no-one should doubt that homelessness in whatever form-and we are not just talking about people sleeping on the streets, but also people sleeping on friends' sofas and those faced with the loss of their homes-can affect health, educational attainment, have an impact on people's economic circumstances, and on their general wellbeing.

Although I do not believe it possible to eliminate homelessness, it is possible to alleviate its effects, and to reduce the stress that people face when they must seek assistance from the authorities. What support can authorities offer people to keep their home? How can they be re-housed without having to be questioned and probed, which, in Shelter's view, my view and that of other people, is unnecessary? In many cases, the reasons for those questions are not clear, and are not related to that person's circumstances or how they came to be in those circumstances. A case is ongoing in my region of someone having had to seek help following a relationship breakdown, but who was told by the case officer that it was likely that the authorities will find them to be intentionally homeless. That person was unable to afford to pay their mortgage as a result of that breakdown, and has two dependent children. Although it may be the case that they did not manage their finances as well as they could have, any reasonable person would accept that they were in that situation through no fault of their own, and that their dependants deserve better than to be put in a hostel for 28 days and then to be told that they must make their own way in the world and find their own accommodation, despite the stress that that family has already gone through. It is important that we take those individual factors into account when we make this impact assessment.

I referred earlier, during questions, that the number of people being declared intentionally homeless has risen from 2.6 per cent of homelessness decisions in 1987-89 to 6 per cent in 2006-07, which equates to 350 households back in the 1980s to 894 households in the last financial year. Although it is a small number in comparison with those who present themselves as homeless to the local authority, it is still a significant increase, and one which will have an impact. Being declared intentionally homeless is, effectively, being told that you are on your own. While there are occasionally some people who act in such a way as to create a problem for themselves, we must ensure that the correct outcome is achieved in every case. That means not following the rule book every time, but taking account of individual circumstances.

All too often, decisions are being taken not on the basis of whether there has been a conscious decision by the applicant to leave home, but instead on whether something that they did or did not do led to their homelessness, whether that was intended or not. The proposals by Shelter to change the duty to investigate intentionality to a power will give local authorities more flexibility to ensure that the right action is taken for each household. However, that must be as part of a reform that sees the duty of local authorities to provide assistance to those declared intentionally homeless extended to a year, as is the model in Scotland. If local authorities know that they have a duty of care, whether they find a case to be one of intentional homelessness or not, they will be able to take a better and more thorough look at each case without the pressures of affordable housing becoming an issue.

Homelessness cannot be set aside from the issue of affordable housing. Until there is a large-scale investment in affordable housing by the Government, there will not be enough social housing to house all those who want and need a home. As a result, local authorities will have to continue to make tough decisions about those who can and cannot afford to live under their own roofs. That will, inevitably, lead to mistakes and injustice.

I appreciate that the Assembly Government is reviewing its homelessness policy and strategy. However, waiting a year or so for action to be taken offers no consolation to those people who are homeless and unable to secure help from the local council because the rules are so inflexible. The Government's amendment effectively kicks this issue into the long grass. I ask Members to reject it and to press instead for a more specific review to be carried out on intentionality as a separate piece of work.

Summing up

Peter Black: I thank Members who have spoken in this debate. It is useful that we air these issues and that we work through them in this way; doing that may help to better inform Government policy.

Leanne referred to the fact that a change in intentionality laws would help 2,000 people a year. In fact, in 2006-07, 894 people were found intentionally homeless, so that figure is slightly awry.

Leanne Wood: It was actually 800 households, so 2,000 people.

Peter Black: Okay, I accept that. However, it gives an idea of the number of people who need this change, and who would benefit from it.

Leanne also referred to the fact that Plaid Cymru is generally supportive of this change; she uses as an illustration the fact that Janet Ryder put in a Member's proposed Measure ballot bid for a legislative competence Order on this. I also did that, as did Bethan Jenkins, so several Members have already taken this on board, and are already trying to bring forward legislation on this issue. That not only shows how effective Shelter's lobbying has been on this issue, but also how effective its arguments are in regard to this issue and in terms of helping people. It also highlights the instances of where people have been found intentionally homeless, when they should not have been so, and as a result have not had the help that they should have had. That is important.

It is important to bear that in mind when considering the Deputy Minister's response. The Deputy Minister is telling us, effectively, that we must wait 12 months while the Government undertakes careful consideration of this and all the other issues. I accept that, when reviewing the homelessness strategy, you have to look at all the issues in the round. However, I do not believe that that should preclude a particular look at this one particular issue, in the same way as when we brought forward the priority uses Order back in 2000; we did so despite objections from some civil servants and others that it should be delayed and considered in the round. Having introduced that, I believe that, on balance, it has been generally beneficial to Wales and to those people who have been homeless and who, as a result, have had additional help sent their way.

Jocelyn Davies: My point is that you mentioned reviewing the homelessness strategy. The Welsh Assembly Government is preparing a 10-year homelessness plan, not simply reviewing the current homelessness strategy.

Peter Black: I understood that point. Whichever way you phrase it, what you are effectively doing is building up a homelessness plan on the basis of what we already have. You cannot discard everything that we have already, and start from scratch, because that would not only be unreasonable, but a waste of resources. Therefore, in effect, you are reviewing what we have at present and you are building up a 10-year strategy on the basis of that. However, that should not preclude an individual look at a particular issue that is causing huge concern among housing providers and among those people who have to deal with people who have been declared intentionally homeless-and I am sure that many Members have had that experience-when they should be getting help from the local authority, which, as a result, they are not getting.

However, I agree with William and Jocelyn that there is huge pressure on local authorities. Jocelyn referred to objections that she has had from Aled Roberts and from Cardiff council to Shelter's proposals. Those objections have come because many local authorities are struggling to cope with their current workload and caseload. That is one reason why I said at the end of my speech that we need to have that investment in affordable and low-cost housing, as well as resources for local authorities, to ensure that they are able to cope with that workload.

I noticed when looking through the budget earlier today, that the amount of money for homelessness, despite its massive increase since 1999, has effectively flatlined for the next three years. So, very little extra money is available for homelessness measures as a result of that. I hope that that will not remain to be the case, particularly if you are going to draw up a 10-year strategy, because there is a clear need and demand out there for more facilities to help local authorities to cope with homeless people, whether those facilities are day centres, night shelters or whether it includes specific support in terms of housing and the supporting people revenue grant. Without that additional support, those local authorities will not be able to cope; the Government needs to address that issue. My suggestion that we have a proper evaluation and provide proper resources would address some of the objections from local authorities. I hope that we will not have to wait 12 months before there is any movement on this, because Members, through ballots for Members' proposed Measures, have already expressed their impatience on the need to move on this and we need to move on it quickly.