Top-down power dynamics: The local perspective

Underpinning the Government’s rationale for enhancing housing-related mechanisms in response to the urban disorder was a stated desire to fix an issue that posed a threat to wider society.

Despite powers already being available to housing providers that allowed landlords to evict a tenant in cases of ASB, the governmental perception was that these needed to be enhanced, as the riots were a demonstration that current powers were not as effective as they could be:

We know that the threat of eviction can act as a powerful driver of improved behaviour. It cannot be right for that sanction to apply only to criminal behaviour towards neighbours or in the locality of the property as it does at the moment. Where a social tenant or a member of their household decided to wreak havoc in someone else’s community, social landlords should have the same scope to take action. (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2011b)

The inference in such political action is that urban unrest amongst social housing tenants is an immediate threat to wider societal norms. It also suggests that it is a problem that happens with some frequency, but which frontline officers are too ill-equipped to deal with effectively. It was the only clause that specified to such granularity what particular action could be sanctioned against, which goes against the general definitions of ASB, which have often remained intentionally vague. Practitioners who were involved in this research were concerned about this and the level of disproportionality. Practitioners felt that, in the case of urban disorder that took place away from an individuals’ home, it was not the role of a housing officer to take action:37

It seems very unfair that if you’re convicted of an offence, and it happens to be a rioting offence, you can then potentially lose your home, where if you’re convicted of any other

37

With the introduction of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) there was a second clause that removed the locality element, which is the harassment of any of the landlords’ employees. The link to a person’s home and tenancy is arguably clearer with this clause, as it is the landlord that is responsible for the property and the tenancy management and is therefore clearly linked with the property and the tenancy.

161

offence, you don’t tend to lose your home, do you? Unless it’s related to where you’re living… [the] anti-social behaviour, you know. If I go out and…mow somebody over with my car, I’m not likely to lose my home because of that and to me, that’s much more serious, consequently, isn’t it? (Neighbourhood Services, ALMO, West Midlands)

My view is that, that any tenancy sanctions are reasonable when they are applied in relation to the conduct of that tenancy, so whether that involves… an altercation between one person and another away from the property, but relates to the fact that they’re next door neighbours and there’s a dispute, that’s fine… If it relates to someone doing drugs in the premises, again, that relates to the use of the property, but I think someone behaving badly [pause] I don’t think should mean, if it has no connection with the property, that they should lose their tenancy…and also, the other thing that is interesting is, obviously, the riot ground only deals with convictions relating to one group of, type of offences… but if someone commits and offence even more serious, but is not connected to a riot, why are they allowed to keep their tenancy then? (Legal Representative, Greater Manchester)

For these practitioners, the riot clause presented an unequal policy response that disproportionately affected social housing tenants. The practitioners reflected their discontent at the lack of coherence of this policy shift, which prescribed rioting specifically as an offence upon which this power could be used. The lack of coherence also extended to the way in which the locality aspect of this power was removed only in the case of urban disorder. As the comment above reflects, there is a more clear justification for serving a NOSP where a behaviour takes place away from the property, but has some clear link back to it – for example an altercation with a next door neighbour could be argued to be related to the property irrespective of where an offence may take place, given that the victim lives in close proximity to the perpetrator.

The additional clause brought in under the 2014 ASB, Crime and Policing Act also echoes the immediate political responses, which was that the Government perceived the riots as “purely” anti-social behaviour and criminality and therefore a punitive response was valid and proportionate. There was no attempt to explore whether there may have been any other underlying causes to be addressed and, even following the Riot Panel’s final report, which offered some other possible explanations, the Government still focused on the riot clause, despite the absence of social housing from any official response.38

The move to include urban disorder into the extended powers of possession for social housing providers was an ostensible effort to help modify some tenants’ behaviour; a way of demonstrating that rioting would not be tolerated and by doing so individuals could lose their home if they were a social housing tenant. David Cameron justified this policy through the idea of promoting responsibility in what he regards as “the most important word in politics” (BBC, 2011). The changes made were given apparent legitimacy through the use of the well- established ‘Broken Britain’ narrative in the absence of any actual evidence to suggest that

38

Housing, including social housing, was absent from both the Riot Communities and Victims Panel’s interim and final reports, as well as a the majority of all other organisation’s reports into the causes and responses to the riots, with the exception of the responses to the initial consultation into extending the powers of possession for social housing landlords.

162

this was an issue amongst social housing tenants. Here, it is possible to begin to see the top- down response to the 2011 riots through housing-related mechanisms as perhaps a way of furthering wider political agendas rather than an attempt by national Government to begin addressing local problems. This line of argument supports, and builds upon, the arguments put forward by Wacquant when he talks about the centaur state and the reframing of a welfare to a penal and workfare state (Wacquant, 2001, 2008, 2009; 2010)

Participants in this research found it difficult to articulate how these amendments would, in practice, ever be used. They felt that it would not be able to achieve its apparent aim of changing an individual’s behaviour and increasing their responsibility:

I understand why it’s there [the riot clause]. It’s certainly there to send a message out, that you know, this sort of behaviour will not be tolerated again…I understand why it’s in the legislation, I just don’t know how much practical use it’s ever going to have. (Solicitor, Greater Manchester)

There is a noticeable disconnect here, however. This participant recognises that the clause is there to convey a message about being ‘tough on crime’, but essentially, the participant felt that the chances of a tenant actually being aware that such a clause exists, or that such powers were available to their housing provider, was very low:

It’s difficult to say [whether the riot clause would have changed people’s behaviour] isn’t it as to how many…of the rioters were actually tenants or more likely to be. There was a lot of young people weren’t there? Children of tenants, for example. I mean I see a lot of cases where…possession is sought on the behaviour of children of tenants in and around the locality of the property anyway. Whether that would have given them an extra thing to think about, or it…was almost as if mass hysteria sort of took over in parts of the country. Whether that would have entered their consciousness, you know, “I don’t want my mum to lose her house, so I’m not going to go and steal trainers from wherever it was”, probably not I would say…I’m getting the distinct impression that it’s probably not going to be used (Solicitor, Greater Manchester)

This sentiment was present in many of the interviews conducted. While, on the one hand, the clause may be characterised as the Government taking a ‘tough stance’ on feckless behaviour, it was promoted as a way in which the broader society would be protected. Marketing it as such therefore suggests that it is serving a wider benefit, however if tenants are unaware of its existence it is unlikely it will be able to act as a deterrence as it was framed in political narratives following the riots. One participant, whose charity works within deprived communities in Greater Manchester, explained that while it was a punitive mechanism, it was a good thing for society:

[It is a] punitive clause, so if anything happens again, Government can be seen to be punishing offenders of riots… is that a good thing or a bad thing? For society it’s a good thing. Society needs to be shown that we do take things seriously and we do get punished… would it stop a young person getting involved and doing it? Not a chance, because they’re because… A they wouldn’t know about it and B caught up in the moment… absolutely not…but society on the whole do need, do need to have that justice is done and seen to be done and I think that’s what that clause is about. That justice is seen to be done. (Community Charity Worker, Greater Manchester)

163

There is a visible tension here between the messages from housing providers and that of this community worker. For the charity worker ‘being seen to be doing something’ was a positive response, although this does not appear to recognise that the riots were not specifically linked to social housing tenants. This may only be a single case, but it does begin to highlight how the riot clause could be unchallenged, even by those who were familiar with the issues in communities and the adverse effect that eviction can have on an individual’s life course. The use of social housing tenancies as a way of punishing and preventing urban disorder also reinforced the sentiment that housing tenancies are a governance mechanism designed to modify individuals’ behaviour according to particular moral codes and norms. This, however, was highlighted as problematic because, it was argued, the nature of a housing tenancy should be contractual and related to the use of the land, rather than the behaviour of a tenant, or their family, in a locality defined by the housing provider:

Under the pre-2011 Act amendments there’s got to be some nexus between the use of the land and the activity… because that’s… about controlling how you use the land. It’s not controlling you as a tenant. It’s not about making you a morally good person. And that’s the shift you’re seeing in the new… amendments, to move it away from the use of the property, to being a morally good person. (Legal Representative, London)

From this then, it could be understood that reasons for the introduction of the riot clause were that the Government perceived local problems as something that needed additional powers to be granted or they saw the riots as an opportunity to (i) be seen to be doing something about deviancy and rampant criminality, in what one participant considered “playing to the galleries” or (ii) saw the riots as an opportunity to pursue other governmental agendas, particularly related to the reduction of tenure security in social housing based on ideological and stigmatised notions of both social housing tenants and those involved in the riots as being morally deviant. A further reason, as articulated by participants, for the introduction of the riot clause was the pacification of the general public and vote garnering. In a number of instances, research participants discussed the riot clause, as well as wider changes to anti-social behaviour legislation, in the context of political popularity. Despite the research interviews being conducted during 2013 and 2014, the next General Election was being held in May 2015, and for a number of participants this was considered an important factor to consider. The articulation and perception of such motivation to make changes supported an argument that the responses to the 2011 were little more than political and ideological:

I think there was a feeling of something needed to be done, or needed to be shown to be done…because I thought it was really funny how quickly the, what is now the Act, was amended in response to the riots…that [the] introduction of the what I sort of call the riot ground, you know, that… was within days of the riots happening and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything so sort of immediately topical (Legal Practitioner, London)

164

Practitioners articulated the role of Housing and ASB Officers as not being a ‘popularity contest’. One housing officer explained that their remit was not to pacify populations – and by this the research participant was referring to politicians and other stakeholders involved in policing urban policy:

It would have been very easy after a huge traumatic event, like the riots, and you know -- the politicians… what they have to do and what they have to been seen to be doing and what they say [they are doing] is to a different audience, I think, than my job. My job is not to pacify people, or… a popularity contest, or anything like that… and I can think on a much longer scale about what the impact of the decisions that we take today would be. (Housing Officer, RSL, East London)

Not only did the participants believe that the Government’s justification for the riot clause as offering preventative powers against future disorder was flawed, but that it also had the potential to be counter-intuitive, given that it lacked any restorative qualities. Instead participants suggested it should just be viewed as a form of punishment once an offence has been committed, with practitioners suggesting that it was a purely punitive measure. It is important to consider that the devolved administrations have chosen not to adopt the riot clause in their housing policies and legislation. One ASB and Policing manager from Wales explained that:

Wales have rejected it because housing is devolved… and Wales tried to take a slightly more liberal view and wanted to also show that… we don’t have the type of problems that London does and all of that… I think it’s more of a political statement that we don’t need this. (ASB and Police Manager, Wales)

With the rioting contained to only England in 2011, it is not necessarily surprising that the devolved nations have omitted this particular clause.