Friday, 25 May 2012

Rough sleeping is just the tip of the iceberg

From: Out of office

Nicky Gavron, Labour London assembly member, attacks Westminster Council’s decision to ban rough sleeping and soup runs.

The council made infamous by Shirley Porter is at it again, forcing people it considers undesirable out of the borough. In the eighties it was low income Labour-voting families; this time it’s some of society’s most vulnerable.

Westminster City Council’s pursuit of a byelaw to make it an offence to sleep rough and give away food in the most salubrious parts of the borough has been well documented.

Cllr Daniel Astaire, the council’s cabinet member for society, families and adult services audaciously told the Daily Mirror: ‘Soup runs have no place in the 21st century. It is undignified that people are being fed on the streets. They actually encourage people to sleep rough with all the dangers that entails.

‘Our priority is to get people off the streets altogether. We have a range of services that can help do that.’

Westminster – like all borough councils – is given a budget to provide services for people in acute housing need, including rough sleepers. Most boroughs have had this budget cut, but Westminster has actually been given an increase – presumably in recognition of the need. And instead of using this extra money to carry out its legal and moral duty to help rough sleepers, it is slashing services and is prepared to waste police time and court resources by criminalising those who need help.

It’s difficult not to think that this is anything other than a cynical manoeuvre to turn Westminster into one big gated community, and to seal it and its more well-heeled residents off from a problem that’s getting worse across the city.

The combination of a stalling economy, rising unemployment, housing and benefit reforms will all conspire to push many more people into homelessness and increase levels of rough sleeping.

No assessment has been made by the government of the costs and impact of their housing and welfare reforms. The government’s total cap on benefits, which will hammer the budgets of families on low incomes, combined with their plan to raise social housing rents to 80 per cent of market rates will put intolerable stress on housing services in London.

Add to this the housing benefit reforms and the plan to make it easier for councils to discharge their homelessness duty, and the increase in rough sleeping seems inevitable.

Most damaging of all will be raising the age threshold for the single room rate from 25 to 35. As one charity leader told me, rough sleepers will struggle to find normal shared housing. Forcing people to live together is a policy that has failed in the past and will fail again.

The government must act now to stop rough sleeping getting worse. If it wants to convince us that these reforms are not ideologically driven, it must get tough with councils like Westminster by refusing this byelaw and reintroducing ring-fencing for those budgets that protect vulnerable people.

Without this, there is little the Mayor’s London Delivery Board on rough sleeping will be able to do to hold back the tide.

Most crucial of all, the government must rethink its housing and benefit reforms. As they stand they will lead to social segregation on an unprecedented scale – and rough sleeping is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nicky Gavron is Labour’s spokesperson for housing and planning on the London Assembly. Read Westminster Council’s response to her blog here.

 

Readers' comments (4)

  • Melvin Bone

    I think we can ignore lectures from a party that managed to 'massage' the homeless figures for so long and brought in LHA with all its various flaws but did nothing but add more extravagent expeniture to LHA rather than curtail the waste that it generated.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sidney Webb

    You probably do - but then should we also ignore the plans of a Council that has tried to kill people before at the direction of a Party that seems hell bent on extending that principle to a national policy?

    Views are ignored at the individual's and nation's peril - as history reminds us.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melvin Bone

    'Views are ignored at the individual's and nation's peril - as history reminds us.'

    Nazis again PSR? you seem stuck in the 20th century maybe you should use examples from different centuries every day. And stop picking on Hitler maybe Ghengis or Alexander the great or the Romans. I mean what did the Romans ever do for us?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sidney Webb

    Intersting presumption Melvin, but you appear to be seeing nazis under your bed.

    - do you not think if people had listened to the views of the Bolshiviks, of Amin, of Gadaffi, or even of Thatcher prior to allowing them into power that they may have acted differently. Should I have been less blind to the reality of Clegg, and listened more to what he said rather than what was heard - and couldn't the same be said of Blair (hope that's enough other-sideisms to not upset those who thought the iron-lady a goddess)

    Stop being so obsessed with the singlemost proffered example of extremism, which causes the many others to be overlooked - this risks, as history reminds us, great peril indeed as it is the best trick of sucessful extremes to have us busy fearing another manifestation of evil whilst they implement their own.

    [the more historic examples you give are less valid - they never pretended to be other than they were, with the exceptions of the Romans, but even then the approach was very honest]

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

sign in register