Labour MP for Hammersmith, Andrew Slaughter, has attacked plans by Hammersmith and Fulham Council to evict rioters from Council homes.
His views are at odds with most voters, including most Labour supporters, as well as several Labour councils including Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Greenwich, Manchester, Nottingham, Salford, Southwark and Waltham Forest.
Having stayed on holiday during the rioting Slaughter now says:
It is an excuse to evict families from secure homes and to deduct benefits from poor families. How punishing a household for the actions of an individual is either equitable or rational, I don’t know, but it has been repeated by politicians seeking soundbites and at a loss for real answers from Nick Clegg to Tory councillors in H&F.
Promising to evict families from council homes if a member of the family is convicted of an offence implies council tenants are more prone to criminal behaviour and that they should have a greater punishment than others committing similar crimes. Of course, the Council has no power to evict in most cases, that is a matter for the courts and this is gesture politics, but if families are evicted and on the streets how is that going to aid social cohesion?
His stance offers little hope for decent Council tenants who want to see neighbours from hell removed. Also what sort of position would that leave the thousands of law abiding families who are on the waiting list for a Council home while stuck in overcrowded conditions? They would see the rioters allowed get away with retaining the privilege of subsidised, secure, Council housing.
The tenancy agreement that Council tenants sign up to is perfectly clear.
It says:
...the tenant is responsible for the behaviour of anyone, including children, family, relatives and friends, who live or lodge at or visit the premises. The tenant shall ensure that they do not act in breach of any of these clauses; nor must the tenant allow or permit them to act in such a way. This applies in the premises and anywhere in the local area.
It goes on:
The tenant or anyone who lives or lodges at or visits the premises shall not do any of the following:
• threaten or use violence towards anyone in the local area...
Conservatives believe this should be applied in reality. Not just on paper.
It was drawn up when Slaughter was Council leader.
Why has he changed his mind? Or he is so out of touch that he didn't know what the Tenancy Agreement said?
There is something which I am not clear about in reading this blog. Is the Council simply saying (quite reasonably I think) that tenants who behave in a way which causes distress, discomfort and even fear to their neighbours face being evicted? Or is it saying that if any member of the household has committed a crime then they should all be evicted? These are very different points of view. One is more reasonable and one is less so. The clause that tenants should not "threaten or use violence towards anyone in the local area..." can apply whether or not there has been an arrest or a conviction. On the other hand some people, including rioters and looters, may commit quite egregious crimes which have no impact at all upon their neighbours or community.
Posted by: Dennis Charman | Tuesday, August 30, 2011 at 06:06 PM