Groups united in opposition to benefit cuts
The government’s proposed cuts to housing benefit have come under fire from all sides, with charities, industry bodies and trade unions all voicing their opposition to the plans.
In a submission to the work and pensions select committee inquiry into the changes, charity body Homeless Link says the government will not save money through the cuts.
It warns that the plan to dock housing benefit by 10 per cent from claimants who have been on Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year will cost the state £3.3 billion annually, rather than producing a saving.
The charity used figures from the National Housing Federation warning that 202,000 people will be at risk of homelessness if the coalition government’s plans to cut the housing benefit bill go ahead.
Its submission says that even if only half of those at risk of homelessness from the changes ended up on the streets, the knock-on effects would still cost the state £1.7 billion annually.
‘There is no logical or moral justification for linking a person’s housing costs to the price of sausages and net curtains.’
Ian Fletcher, director of policy, BPF
The Trades Union Congress warned the changes to jobseeker’s allowance would cost 200,000 unemployed people £500 a year, in its submission to the inquiry.
The British Property Federation’s submission warns the cuts are a ‘recipe for destitution’, and could force hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes and jobs.
It says families on local housing allowance may be priced out of areas with the most employment opportunities once government caps to the amount of housing benefit payable come into force from next April.
The federation estimates there are more than 400,000 new claimants who will be hit by the changes, and that a further 400,000 people already in work and claiming the benefit will be priced out of their homes.
Ian Fletcher, director of policy, said: ‘Reform is needed, but yet more piecemeal changes to local housing allowance are just making a flawed system worse.’
The BPF also criticises the plan to link housing benefit to the consumer price index, rather than the higher retail price index. Its submission points to evidence from the Treasury which shows rents grow at a higher rate than CPI.
Earlier this week housing charity Shelter published research commissioned from the University of Cambridge showing the housing benefit cuts will push an extra 27,000 families into poverty.
The charity questioned how the policy was compatible with the government’s aim of ending child poverty by 2020. Chief executive Campbell Robb said: ‘It’s hard to see how the government plans to lift children out of poverty when one of its first big reforms threatens the futures of thousands of children who are already living on a knife edge.’
Inside Housing is running a campaign calling on the government to find a fairer way to reduce housing benefit costs. Our petition on the subject has been signed by 1,159 people.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (21)
Sidney Webb | 09/09/2010 1:02 pm
So as many of the more informed posters to IH have been stating since Pickled/Shapps pronounced his plans, this is not the way to reduce spending. Now we have evidence that they are going to be spending more as a result of the benefit cap. Capping rents is the only remaining method of reducing the cost of housing the poor (unless of course someone wises up to building up to 1.5M affordable homes immediately, reaping the economic and social improvement of doing so).
If the government persists in this policy it will only be out of spite against those who have the least ability to defend themselves, and are also the least responsible for the economic position the government is in.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 09/09/2010 1:14 pm
PSR:'Now we have evidence that they are going to be spending more as a result of the benefit cap.'
Explain...I'm simple remember...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 09/09/2010 1:36 pm
It is in the article:
'It warns that the plan to dock housing benefit by 10 per cent from claimants who have been on Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year will cost the state £3.3 billion annually, rather than producing a saving.'
I won't copy all of it, just look at the top of the page and you'll find it there.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
gordon thompson | 09/09/2010 2:26 pm
A pattern is emerging - if you are not a typical tory supporter then watch out. All policies seem to be aimed t those of different political leanings. How else can one explian the appointment of Phillip Green (tax evader extraordinaire) against the slashing of welfar benefits; or the appointment of Mr Diamond (an architecht of the banking crisis) against Pickles scathing comments against an Audit Commission board member; or the North/South impact of the public sectior cuts (Labour are strongest up North and Cons are strongest down south). Sick, sick, sick. let hope the up coming round of party political conferences kills the coalition and we can all vote again (remember no one in the entire country actually voted for this government or the programm they are pursuing - if this was Africa or the middle east we would be jumping up and down about corrupt gobvenments!).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 09/09/2010 2:48 pm
There would be handwringing only, since we have flogged off our oil to foreign parts and have nothing worth stealing, 'liberation from the extemist government' would not be required.
This is nothing new gordon, it was happening under Blair, as it was under Thatcher, and their grey successors. Even Wilson covered up some of the stranger goings on under Heath (check out the public account committee terminated investigations into the award by Minister Costain public works contracts to his brother - you'll have to dig a bit but the contracts relate to the mid-1960's)
The trough hungry have been increasingly in control as our politics has changed towards elitism. It happened more quickly under Stalin (unusually efficient) but the end result of collaps will be the same.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 09/09/2010 3:04 pm
The thing that I find strange is that this determination to make life harder for the unemployed, is being pursuedeven though it will cost us more in the ling-term.
Meanwhile, following computer errors at HMRC causing millions to underpay their income tax, a national newspaper publishes this advice:
Angela Beech, partner at chartered accountants Blick Rothenberg, said: "Those that receive these demands need to think before they automatically pay up."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7985941/PAYE-tax-error-Workers-urged-to-use-loophole-to-avoid-HMRC-tax-repayment-demands.html
Why is it OK to hound the poor for a few hundred quid while simultaneously advising the better off to shirk paying their dues? Just what is the culture we are supposed to be promoting and where now the much-vaunted "rights vs responsibilities" ethos the Tories are constantly talking up?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 09/09/2010 3:21 pm
''It warns that the plan to dock housing benefit by 10 per cent from claimants who have been on Jobseeker’s Allowance for more than a year will cost the state £3.3 billion annually, rather than producing a saving.''
The 10% cap is a mere proposal for 2012 at the moment.
As for promised of ending Child Poverty I thought Labour promised to end that within the first 10 years of their regime...Poverty overall seems to be a moving target that will never be completeley eradicated.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eric Blair | 09/09/2010 3:30 pm
From a completely personal point of view, I lived through the mass unemployment and misery of the 80s and I didn't do enough about it back then.
I'm not going to make the same mistake again! I live in an area which could be described as deprived, and I know people are being hard hit. They did nothing to deserve it.
The TUC are organising against these cuts:
http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/09/we-need-a-huge-campaign-against-the-cuts
I hope people help them to push back against these misguided and policies. As the TUC point out, these cuts affect the private sector too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kev Dupree | 09/09/2010 3:51 pm
I do not see how people accept the current situation we are in with welfare dependancy, in 3.8 million UK households no-one works. That means every penny for housing, taxes, living expenses etc etc etc are payed for out of the public purse.
In my opinion this sort of campaign is started by very well intentioned people who are looking out for the most vunerable in society, for this humanistic approach to life, they must be applauded.
The problem as i see it is that those who genuinley could work are grouped with those in genuine need and any attempt to force them to support themselves is seen as an attack on those who are most vunerable.
A perfect example of this is in the previous post by Paine:
"Why is it OK to hound the poor for a few hundred quid while simultaneously advising the better off to shirk paying their dues?"
He/she has just classified those who work as well off and those who don't as poor. Is a cleaner on minimum wage classed as well off , on their £11k salary? Obviously not, but this is a perfect example of how over simplifying the groups involved makes this sort of campaign appeal to the masses.
We seem to be going soft as a society as a whole and we don't ask people to be accountable for their own actions any more.
That is really my main point in this whole rant; ACCOUNTABILITY
If someone didn't bother going to school and got no qualifications or education then they must stand up and face the fact that because they haven't prepared themselves for life, they may not receive a good wage, live in a nice house. They have the oppertunity to change this by working hard or maybe going back to college but i dont see many people doning this.
This seems very mean spirited even as i type it but at the end of the day life is tough and you have to put in effort to get reward.
I would ask those who face this cut (and are physicaly able to work- even if it is in McDonalds) what do you do from Mon-Fri 9-5?
I feel very few would answer, i spend 35 hours a week looking for jobs, doing voluntary work, gaining further education.
I work 40 hrs a week but do not mind one bit. I am intelligent enough to realise that to have the things in life you want, you need to put in effort to get the reward.
I don't even care if this costs the taxpayer money, if it gets people off their sofa and into work it will be a success.
I'd love to hear others opinions about my thoughts as this is such a complicated issue. Does anyone agree that the grouping of all those who are unemployed seems to offer "protection" to those who are simply sponging off society?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 09/09/2010 4:28 pm
Mr Dupree. I don't believe it. You've managed in the space of not more than 48 hours to become a card-carrying Conservative.
The Sparty's here will have their say.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment