Easy to say, of course, but to actually do what is promised means taking the promise seriously. The proposed 10 per cent cut in housing benefit for those on job seekers’ allowance for more than 12 months (Streets apart, Inside Housing, 2 July) shows an alarming disregard for ‘the most vulnerable’.

More than two thirds of our (formerly homeless) residents have been out of work for more than five years; and one in seven has never worked at all. The notion that they will all find and hold down jobs within 12 months is nonsensical. We have argued - and will continue to make the case - for a recognition that, for some, the return to work is a labyrinthine journey, beset by false starts, dead ends and relapses. It may take up to two or even three years, but it is vital to persevere.

To penalise people who are trying, but who have personal backgrounds of fracture and distress, is grossly unfair. It also presents St Mungo’s with an intolerable dilemma - to evict people because they have rent arrears, thereby contributing to the very homelessness which we are pledged to end; or to absorb the extra costs by reducing services elsewhere, and thereby bail out the parsimony of the state. Which services should we consider reducing? Our largely charitably funded pathways to employment programme perhaps?

If the pledge to protect ‘the most vulnerable in society’ is to have any substance, then what it means in practice needs to be thought through. With care.

Charles Fraser, chief executive, St Mungo’s

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment