Why are there no legal protections for the homeless in winter?

OP

Original post by ByEeek

It is very sad isn't it. There used to be homeless shelters prior to 2010. Then the Tories got in and shut them all down. It was the same under the Tories in the 90's. There were homeless folks on every street corner in 1993 / 4 when I used to regularly head into Leeds every Saturday. Labour got in and by around 2003, it was pretty noticeable that there just weren't any homeless any more. Sure, there were beggars, but they are a different breed.

Labour really needs to stand up for what it achieved during the 1997-2010 governments. Might not have been perfect but it surely isnt as disastrous as the Conversatives tenure in governemnt since 2010 yet they get away with it by tarnishing the reputation of the 1997-2010 governments and the left-wing of Labour goes along with it without knowing they do nothing but alienate the middle ground voters they need to win.

I think I might contact my local MP and make him raise the issue in parliament, I don’t see how/why it could be opposed since they’d have 100% backing of labour, SNP and Lib Dem MPs, if it failed because of conversative MPs they’d be shooting themselves in the foot and Labour could easily use it to paint a bad picture of them.. its seriously not a big ask, even US Republicans aren’t that heartless.

Reply 3

Notoriety

22

I guess you've not heard about the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 brought in by the Tories and coming into effect in April 2018.

Councils have a duty to assist all "eligible" homeless people rather than "priority needs", as it is under current legislation. Eligibility will depend upon immigration status; priority is much more difficult to satisfy. Labour made no real attempt to change the duty under the Housing Act 1996.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Notoriety

I guess you've not heard about the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 brought in by the Tories and coming into effect in April 2018.

Councils have a duty to assist all "eligible" homeless people rather than "priority needs", as it is under current legislation. Eligibility will depend upon immigration status; priority is much more difficult to satisfy. Labour made no real attempt to change the duty under the Housing Act 1996.

This is mostly a measure to prevent homelessness, an aim to reduce it, but mostly to organise how homelessness is dealt with by councils... its a fair effort but its not backed up by extra funding for councils to tackle the issue. You’ll find most councils are already tackling homeless using maximum resources so this wont directly be taking people off the streets.

In a state like New York they have a right and guarantee to shelter in life threatening conditions defined as weather below 0º. If it dips below 0º or the weather puts your life in danger, you WILL be given shelter regardless of priority, immigration status, etc etc. No ifs, no buts, you’re guaranteed warm and safe shelter, you’re guaranteed that your life wont be put on the line by the weather.

Reply 5

Notoriety

22

Original post by Zxyn

This is mostly a measure to prevent homelessness, an aim to reduce it, but mostly to organise how homelessness is dealt with by councils... its a fair effort but its not backed up by extra funding for councils to tackle the issue. You’ll find most councils are already tackling homeless using maximum resources so this wont directly be taking people off the streets.

That's simply untrue. See here.

The government has said £61m will go towards helping councils across the country, plus £11m in London, as they face their new responsibilities.

There will be a significant £1bn of funding for homelessness support through till 2020. Note, there is also housing benefit/housing element of UC that will take up the brunt of the funding burden, which is automatic and not covered by the £1bn of specific homelessness support funding.

Of course, there could be more funding, but here is a hard legal duty which will help prevent homelessness. As someone who works pro bonowith homeless people and the local council, the priority needs test is incredibly elaborate expression of the basic desire: home those who are homeless. The elaborateness of the test causes people, who ordinarily are disinclined to complete complex tasks, to lose any interest in trying to submit the proper paperwork. The process is incredibly legalistic. Look at the exchanges between council and claimant, see here at para 6 and the general expression of law of the whole judgment. Now it will be simple.

Zxyn

In a state like New York they have a right and guarantee to shelter in life threatening conditions defined as weather below 0º. If it dips below 0º or the weather puts your life in danger, you WILL be given shelter regardless of priority, immigration status, etc etc. No ifs, no buts, you’re guaranteed warm and safe shelter, you’re guaranteed that your life wont be put on the line by the weather.

I don't think having people housed for 10-20 nights a year, when it gets sub-zero, is superior to people being housed 365 nights a year. Sure this way makes fewer headlines, but it is how to properly deal with homelessness.

Remove the political nonsense from the discussion, and it is quite obvious the sweeping reforms are desirable and much needed.

Reply 6

Original post by Notoriety

I guess you've not heard about the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 brought in by the Tories and coming into effect in April 2018.

Councils have a duty to assist all "eligible" homeless people rather than "priority needs", as it is under current legislation. Eligibility will depend upon immigration status; priority is much more difficult to satisfy. Labour made no real attempt to change the duty under the Housing Act 1996.

The bill is a gimmick and just because it has a nice name, doesn't mean it will actually do anything positive.

The biggest issue that councils have is a lack of resources and funding and that's because the government has cut their budgets by 40% over recent years.

All that bill does is place an obligation on councils to do more. But simply requiring councils to do more without providing them the resources to do it will not achieve anything.

Councils need money to build properties and house homeless people. Not meaningless bills.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 7

Original post by Zxyn

Even plenty of states in the USA got this one right. If people have the right to life, the government has a duty to protect them in life threatening conditions. Why is there no legislation or debate around this?

Feel free to open up your home then.

Reply 8

Notoriety

22

Original post by DeBruyne18

The bill is a gimmick and just because it has a nice name, doesn't mean it will actually do anything positive.

The biggest issue that councils have is a lack of resources and funding and that's because the government has cut their budgets by 40% over recent years.

All that bill does is place an obligation on councils to do more. But simply requiring councils to do more without providing them the resources to do it will not achieve anything.

Councils need money to build properties and house homeless people. Not meaningless bills.

I really enjoy you, who's never even heard of the Act, supposedly schooling me on it.

If you read my second post in this thread, the Act comes with additional funding. Also council funding people's housing does not entail the council owning the properties or building them.

Reply 9

Original post by Notoriety

I really enjoy you, who's never even heard of the Act, supposedly schooling me on it.

If you read my second post in this thread, the Act comes with additional funding. Also council funding people's housing does not entail the council owning the properties or building them.

Yes I have heard of the act and I have worked in housing.

It's a typical tory tactic this. Impose an obligation on a council or devolved government but don't actually give them the funding to meet that obligation. I'm not really sure how you can dispute the fact that councils have faced massive budget cuts which leaves them far less capable of tackling homelessness. They don't need extra duties or extra obligations. They need greater resources to tackle the problems.

A bit like the NHS in Wales, give the devolved region power to run it, cut it's funding and then blame Labour.

I'm flabbergasted that you think telling a Council they have an obligation to do something, without giving them the resources to do it is a viable plan. The additional funding is pocket money. And doesn't take into account the huge cuts councils have faced and continue to face in their funding streams.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 10

OP

Original post by Reue

Feel free to open up your home then.

I already pay taxes! Surely I have a right to say how it should be spent? I already give to my community, if I didn’t pay taxes, paying towards homeless people would be a priority and I would consider letting them into my house during such periods. But id rather my taxes went on my idea than on a new ugly bus station no one here even wants. I’m sure most people in my area would agree.

Reply 11

thornsandroses1

17

Truthfully, I have no idea.

Reply 12

Original post by Zxyn

I already pay taxes! Surely I have a right to say how it should be spent? I already give to my community, if I didn’t pay taxes, paying towards homeless people would be a priority and I would consider letting them into my house during such periods. But id rather my taxes went on my idea than on a new ugly bus station no one here even wants. I’m sure most people in my area would agree.

Ok, so how many nurses/policeman/firemen should we fire to fund it instead?

The likelihood is that the taxes you pay do not cover your own net usage of services.

Reply 13

Original post by Zxyn

Even plenty of states in the USA got this one right. If people have the right to life, the government has a duty to protect them in life threatening conditions. Why is there no legislation or debate around this?

To answer your question, we don't need legislation. We need to give councils the resources to tackle the problem. Not impose extra-obligations on them without giving them the funding to do it.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by Reue

Ok, so how many nurses/policeman/firemen should we fire to fund it instead?

The likelihood is that the taxes you pay do not cover your own net usage of services.

Scrap the ugly bus station no one wants, also governments can use empty office buildings at lower costs or can simply convert parts of the town hall as a temporary shelter.

Reply 15

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by Reue

Feel free to open up your home then.

What a ridiculous argument. We all pay taxes and tax is supposed to fund exactly this sort of thing.

Reply 16

OP

Original post by DeBruyne18

To answer your question, we don't need legislation. We need to give councils the resources to tackle the problem. Not impose extra-obligations on them without giving them the funding to do it.

Of course, but you’d need legislation to direct how its spent or else you’d simply be funding existing council homelessness schemes which don’t guarantee shelter in harsh weather conditions

Reply 17

Original post by Zxyn

Scrap the ugly bus station no one wants

So you went along to your local council infrastructure committee to make that point?

Original post by Zxyn

also governments can use empty office buildings at lower costs or can simply convert parts of the town hall as a temporary shelter.

So again; you're going to open up your home? Why should someone else be forced to do so?

My town hall is a museum. I doubt many homeless would fit around the
bayeux tapestry replica.

Reply 18

Original post by RF_PineMarten

What a ridiculous argument. We all pay taxes and tax is supposed to fund exactly this sort of thing.

It does fund this sort of thing.

Reply 19