Are we bringing back Poor Laws?

But this post is not a tale of an all too common Victorian scandal. Rather, it is a tale of one that might be on its way. For, in a year when the homelessness sector has celebrated the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824, there is a very real risk that we might be sleepwalking into bringing back the infamous Poor Laws that were created at the same time, or at least some of the worst parts of it.  

The 20th century post-war era finally ushered in the demise of the Poor Laws, with the Beveridge Report of 1942 condemning that “it should not be allowed to continue under any guise” because “social security must be achieved by co-operation between the state and the individual. It must be a unified national scheme”. This cemented a notion that people deserved help where they were, not where they came from.  

But today, we see the return of the Poor Law philosophy with the growing emphasis on local connection. While “we don’t import need” might sound like a line from a workhouse master of a bygone era, it actually came from a housing official in a London borough. It is a sentiment that advice workers at the New Horizon Youth Centre are seeing again and again in councils when trying to get support for new young homeless people that come to our day centre every day.

Although there is no provision for local authorities to determine individual claims based on local connection, this is exactly what is happening in practice. As the housing crisis deepens and London’s temporary accommodation bills continue to escalate, so too will the walls of the borough boundaries, unless the forthcoming Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act clarifies the position. 

Will it uphold what Beveridge held dear, or further embed a system where supported housing provision will only be available for those who are from the borough the housing is in? 

“We do not live in Victorian times anymore, but we should not underestimate the damage a modern-day ‘local connection’ and ‘removal’ policy might cause to our ambitions to end homelessness”

To an outsider looking in, ‘local housing for local people’ might sound like a sensible solution, but it creates two significant and related issues. First, it is a policy designed to harm the most vulnerable. The reasons that led to people’s homelessness can also be the reasons they need to leave their home area.  

Second, it assumes, incorrectly, that services and support are distributed evenly across the country when they are not. Major cities have always and will always be a draw for people. It wasn’t long ago the mayor was championing that “London is Open”. Are we now saying that is closed?  

History has a nasty habit of repeating itself when we were not paying attention the first time. We do not live in Victorian times anymore, but we should not underestimate the damage a modern-day ‘local connection’ and ‘removal’ policy might cause to our ambitions to end homelessness. 

The National Assistance Act 1948 helped us get rid of the removal process and the stipulation that help could only come from the place you once called home. This autumn, we will find out if the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act reintroduces it and if, once again, our past catches up with us.  

Phil Kerry, chief executive, New Horizon Youth Centre