Destitution at Mornington Crescent

(photo by A. Brady, GNU licence, Wikimedia Commons)

The Westminster Rules

It kicked off with Westminster, and the Court holding that social services could accommodate and support people who are destitute, because this was "any other circumstance" a phrase found in section 21, National Assistance Act 1948. This opened the way for social services to become a welfare state of last resort.

Bhikha then played Leicester Square, more commonly known as Wandsworth. The government had tried to say that the Westminster Rules did not apply when subject to immigration control. The Court held they did, provided the relatively generous "desitution plus" test was met.

Strangely, an attempt was made to go from Westminster via NASS, arguing that the National Asylum Support Service owed the relevant duty so the local authority did not. However, NASS could not be found on the map and the move was disqualified.

The Lambeth moves

In an important move, Mani called Lambeth North, demonstrating in particular that even if a destitute person's needs for care and attention could be addressed by other means than the provision of accommodation, the duty to accommodate would still arise if the test were met.

Almost immediately, their Lordships counter-played High Barnet, which is also a Lambeth move. Strictly, this was a 'Children Act strategy', but in holding there could be a Children Act duty to accommodate, while simultaneously upholding a decision to accommodate a homeless child separately from its parents, there were significant repercussions in terms of subsequent moves.

The Angel, Islington provided a diversion, when the Court of Appeal discussed at length, and positively, the possible consequences of an illegally present mother having a British Citizen child - but without forming any clear conclusions on the consequences for destitution support. Unfortunately, many feel the ground gained was lost when Blackburn-Smith played Lambeth again (several attempts have been made to play Lambeth moves, and some, such as the Grant manouevre, backfired badly), but that came later. 

Mixed results from Seven Sisters

The next significant call was actually Seven Sisters, on the consequences for families where different bodies appeared to owe different duties to different parts of the family. Seven Sisters is, of course, in Haringey, where the possibility of a mixed support package was confirmed - part social services, part asylum support.

AW managed to successfully call Croydon, even though there is no tube station in the borough. The High Court held, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that disqualificaton for NASS (see Westminster's attempted move earlier) held good in respect of failed asylum seekers as well as those whose claims were pending: the duty still fell on the local authority. The same case confirmed not all failed asylum seekers were unlawfully present,

I have commented in a previous blog on the Pajazitis' call of Lewisham. Like Mornington Crescent, the tube sations in this borough have been out of action. The Court simply, but positively, confirmed the existing rules in their favour.

Mornington Crescent!

The Slough tactic

Followers of the game may be wondering about the Slough tactic, especially as it seems contrary to the direction of play following Mani and reaffirmed in Pajaziti. Also, they lost below in the Court of Appeal and the High Court. It seems the core argument is still about the proper interpretation of the interface between "care and attention" and the "destitute plus" test, and whether there is any way of taking a position that those who are ill as well as subject to immigration control are not social services responsibility. 

Personally, I hope their Lordships will kick this clear attempt to circumvent the Rules into the long grass - but we shall see, and if you subscribe to this blog, you will be among the first to know! 

Warning: you should not play 'Destitution at Mornington Crescent' unless you know the Rules currently being played. Real, vulnerable, people can be badly hurt by miscalled moves!

Allan Norman is Principal Social Worker & Solicitor at Celtic Knot (www.celticknot.org.uk), an independent law firm and social work practice.