Monday, 02 March 2015

Shapps defends SP ring fence decision

The housing minister has defended the government’s decision not to re-instate the ring fence for the supporting people budget.

The ring fence for supporting people, which provides housing-related support services, was removed in April 2009 by the previous Labour government. This has led to councils slashing supporting people budgets.

Grant Shapps, speaking at the Conservative party conference in Manchester this week, rejected calls to reinstate the ring fence.

He said: ‘If you just take the view of ring-fencing everything… would be back in the mess of trying to dictate how every penny is spent from Whitehall.’

Readers' comments (5)

  • How about we just ringfence the money that provides services for the most vulnerable people in our society?

    Not to mention the fact that it saves £3.41 for every £1.60 spent!!! Surely more investment means more savings!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • F451

    With a Tory led government and the majority of local authorites also being Tory led, and the Tory claim to be caring and supportive, there clearly is not a need for any ringfencing as the Local Tories and National Tories all working together will achieve the outcomes that they are commonly pledged to - surely?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Joe Halewood

    Dear esteemed IH columnist Shapps,

    Please reveal what other budgets have called for ring-fencing to be applied?

    Alternatively, treat the question with some respect and answer it

    Yours aghast at your flippancy,

    PS - Is it your spin department Mr Shapps as to why the £3.41 for every £1.60 stat (or £2.30 per £1) keeps appearing when the report said £2.68 for every £1.

    PS1 - £2.68 return for every £1 invested is affordable

    PS2 - Increasing social rents at up to 85% for council and 64% for HA rents most certainly is not - still the £181 - £563m per year extra this gives 'can be borne by the HB budget' non?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jimmy Cricket

    F451 - but it was the Labour govt who removed the ring-fencing in the first place see, not the Tories. Geddit? Labour?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • F451

    So that makes it all OK then C'mon Sense. Labour removed it, so that means the Tories must just go along with it.

    Makes sense I suppose, after all the Tories set up consumerism as the central core of our economy, established mass unemployment, introduced welfare targeting regardless of cost, gave us the UBR despite the overcrowding of the South East it caused, and removed the poor persons avenues of complaint by reducing legal aid and diminishing the unions, all this and mass privatisation including the ban on building council housing - and Labour went along with the lot.

    Hardly a fag paper between them.

    But C'mon Sense, this is not an argument of your tribe right my tribe wrong - this is the simple fact that abandoning the funding of crucial services for the most vulnerable is wrong. The current government and councils are the ones able to correct this wrong, instead they are compounding it.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register

Newsletter Sign-up



IH Subscription