Out of Area Policy as Organised Banishment

Roman Army Punishment: Banishment. Source: https://www.sciencesource.com/archive/Roman-Army-Punishment–Banishment-SS2744054.html

At HERC we publish blog articles covering a wide range of issues that broadly relate to harm, evidence, crime and justice. In keeping with the critical position of HERC, our aim is to highlight all sides of the debate and to facilitate a discussion so that all voices are heard on the issue.  

Banishment

Banishment is a term used to describe the diverse arrangement of policy practices and techniques that, although not always visible, result in the coercive removal of destitute populations from their home communities. Banishment involves the legal requirement to leave a specified geographical area for an extended period of time. Versions of banishment have been used throughout history, as an exceptional mode of punishment and coercive organization of labour: from the Roman empire to European colonialism, relegatio and transportation were used as exceptional forms of banishment exercised over key marginalised groups.

But what if banishment is not an exceptional mode of organising marginalised groups? What if it is a normal function of the modern state, exercised by local authorities as part of their modus operandi, to banish marginalised groups out of the local vicinity?  As the government strips away crucial welfare support against the backdrop of austerity and Brexit politics, public institutions are finding ways of banishing economically marginalised groups in this hostile austerity-driven environment.

Out of area policy

A recent report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on ‘sent away children’,  revealed that approximately 60-70% of all children living in children’s homes are placed out of area by statutory authorities that have a legal duty to safeguard and protect them. ‘Out of area’ is the official policy term and practice used by statutory authorities to move people from their home communities and relocate them in a ‘host-area’. A host area is, strictly speaking, anywhere that is located outside the geographical boundaries of the statutory authority responsible for looking after them. In the case of children living in care, children can be placed more than 100 miles away from their home community.

But out of area policy practice is not unique to children living in care and drawing on two examples – community punishment (1) and housing (2) – this article explains how out of area policy is exercised over a range of economically marginalised groups, that effectively results in their banishment from the key areas.

Out of area policy in community punishment

In 2013, I conducted a research study called No Fixed Abode, which revealed the routine practice of sending convicted women out of area, to serve a community punishment away from their home communities.  Like children in care, the main reason for sending convicted women to a host area is due to the paltry and geographically patchy provision of probation hostels available for women, across England and Wales. Presently, there are only 6 probation hostels for women, compared to 94 for men. There are no probation hostels available for women in Wales or in London.

Given this paltry level of provision, it is no surprise that half of all female residents in probation hostels in England and Wales come from out-of-area. The women I interviewed as part of this study revealed that serving a community punishment out of area is supremely complex.  Women had to travel to and from their host area and home community on a fortnightly basis: to visit their children; undergo a ‘staged return’ back to their home communities; and maintain contact with the probation authorities responsible for their ‘community’ supervision. Where some women were pleased about the prospect of returning to their original home communities, others did not plan to return to their home communities at all. One woman I interviewed had to travel 200 miles between her host community and home community, just to maintain contact with her probation officer. At the same time, she was being actively supported by probation hostel staff to be permanently rehoused in the host community.  This complex arrangement not only highlights the redundant use of the term ‘community’, but further reveals that permanency of their banishment.

Source: image from ‘Femme Maison’ by Louise Bourgeois.

Until recently, sending women out of area to serve a community punishment was rarely acknowledged as a draconian or discriminatory practice. And even though Probation has conceded for some time this practice is incompatible with equalities law, it is still frequently used over women in the community. Then, in May 2017, a judicial review in the Supreme Court ruled that the uneven distribution of probation hostels unlawfully discriminates against women and the No Fixed Abode study was used by the Howard League for Penal Reform as part of their evidence to assist this Supreme Court decision. A landmark ruling, this judgment means that women who are sent out of area to serve a community punishment can now bring legal proceedings of unlawful sex discrimination to court.

Out of area policy in housing

But, as highlighted in the case of children in care, banishing people out of area is not a unique policy practice. As thousands of households free-fall into homelessness in the aftermath of the global financial crash, homeless adults and children are also routinely sent out of area; to live outside the purview of the housing authority that has a legal duty of care to them. If homeless applicants refuse the housing offer, then local authorities can, and often do, declare them ‘intentionally homeless’. From the limited evidence that is available, there has been an extraordinary rise in the numbers of homeless households sent out of area to live in temporary accommodation. In 2017, 22,050 homeless households were sent out of area, constituting a staggering 248% since 2011. In 2015, figures obtained by The Independent newspaper show that several London local authorities have displaced 50,000 homeless people to different boroughs inside and outside of London.  

Source: image from film, I, Daniel Blake by Ken Loach. The family in this film are displaced from London to Hull.

Emerging evidence, testimonies and judicial reviews suggest that local authorities are failing in their basic duty to adequately support homeless families. Perhaps the most widely known case is that of Nzolameso v City of Westminster. Westminster City Council provided full-duty housing support to Ms Nzolameso when she could no longer afford her private rented property as a result of the Benefit cap (introduced as part of the Welfare Reform Act in 2012). But rather than rehouse her in Westminster or surrounding boroughs, Westminster Council offered Ms Nzolameso and her family rehousing in Bletchley, Milton Keynes. The appeal went to the Supreme Court and was upheld on the grounds that Westminster Council had not made sufficient enquiries about the impacts of rehousing the family in Milton Keynes.

Housing families out of area has produced an impossible bureaucratic scenario that can only be described as surreal.  For example, several London boroughs have rehoused their homeless applicants in Milton Keynes (as highlighted in the case above). But Milton Keynes authorities are at the same time rehousing their homeless applicants in Bedford, Northampton and Dunstable and recently purchased 110 apartments in Luton, to permanently rehouse their homeless applicants there. We seem to now be on a never ending cycle of displacement and banishment.

Out of area policy as organised banishment

Against the backdrop of austerity-driven political climate and Brexit politics,  banishment has become the modus operandi to addressing a lack of resources in local authority areas. Out of area policy variously results in the banishment of key marginalised groups and local authorities will justify these practices on the basis that it’s in the best interest of the people they send away. But judicial reviews and parliamentary inquiries show that its discriminatory and amplifies the risk and vulnerability of those affected,  especially in the case of children in care. We must therefore cast a critical lens on policy legislation that allows statutory bodies to circumvent or, at best, complicate their legal duty of care; to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and vulnerable adults.

Vickie Cooper is a senior lecturer in Criminology at The Open University.