'Social cleansing' housing benefit cap row: Duncan Smith hits back

 
Olympic Park The Olympic Park sits in the borough of Newham - one of the poorest in London

Related Stories

The government has defended its housing benefit cap after it emerged London's Newham council was trying to find homes for some families 160 miles away.

The council has been accused of "social cleansing", but its mayor said it was trying to find the best solution.

But Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said there were "thousands of houses" within five miles of Newham which fell within the cap.

Westminster council is also understood to be considering a similar proposal.

As part of its welfare reforms, the government has introduced weekly caps on housing benefit of between £250 for a one-bedroom flat and £400 for a four-bedroom property.

Local Housing Allowance, which is used to determine housing benefit payments, has also been changed so it is being calculated on the basis of cheaper rents - rather than on the mid-point of rents in an area.

'Overheat'

Labour-controlled Newham Council runs one of London's poorest boroughs in the east of the city - which is home to much of the new 500-acre Olympic Park.

Housing benefit changes: Impact on number of available properties

Top five areas Property loss

Source: Chartered Institute of Housing research, Jan 2012

1. Westminster

20,700

2. Birmingham

14,200

3. Kensington and Chelsea

14,100

4. Glasgow City

10,120

5. Camden

10,000

Total: England, Scotland, Wales

800,000

It has written to Brighter Futures Housing Association in Stoke-on-Trent, offering it the "opportunity" to lease it homes for up to 500 families on housing benefit.

It says the local private rental sector in Newham is beginning to "overheat" because of the "onset of the Olympic Games and the buoyant young professionals market", and it can no longer afford to house tenants on its waiting list in private accommodation.

Newham Council is offering to pay Brighter Futures 90% of the local housing allowance plus £60 per week.

But Brighter Futures chief executive officer Gill Brown says she will not agree to the request: "I think there is a real issue of social cleansing going on.

"We are very anxious about this letter which we believe signals the start of a movement which could see thousands of needy people dumped in Stoke with no proper plan for their support or their welfare."

She said previous efforts to relocate needy people had put strain on local public services and led to "the collapse of already vulnerable neighbourhoods and the rise of divisive right-wing extremism".

'Not pushing'

Newham's mayor, Sir Robin Wales, blamed government policies which had left his borough "chasing around the country trying to find ways to deal with people who are in need".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We have got a waiting list of 32,000 - we've got hundreds of people looking for places to stay and the result of government benefit cuts, which are still working through as well, means that many more people from wealthier parts of London are looking for places to live in London and they're just not there.

"We have written to 1,179 organisations [housing associations] saying could you accommodate some people? We're not looking to push people all to one place, we're looking to find the best possible solution for citizens."

But ministers have pointed to a £190m discretionary fund available to help councils and insisted that even after the cap, families can still claim up to £21,000 a year towards their rent.

Mr Duncan Smith said the cap had been in place since April 2011 and "every other council" was "managing" with it even though it was "difficult".

"We need to get people into housing they can afford to go work from, so the taxpayer doesn't have to foot that bill."

He added: "I suspect this is somewhat a little political at a time of local elections."

'Kosovo-style cleansing'

Ministers say the way housing benefit is calculated means 30% of homes in an area will be within the cap - and they argue the changes are simply "shaving £2bn off a £25bn per annum budget".

But Sir Robin said just because there were 1,000 properties available, did not mean landlords would take housing benefit claimants.

Meanwhile, Westminster is said to be considering an offer from Smart Housing Group - a private association with homes in Nottingham and Derby - in conjunction with its partner councils Chelsea and Hammersmith, and Fulham.

It has suggested it could provide properties for Westminster residents deemed "homeless" as a result of the cap - and if accepted, each of the three London councils would send 50 families.

Ben Denton, Westminster's director of housing, worklessness and regeneration, said there were more than 1,000 families on the waiting list so it had no option to look for "fair and realistic" alternatives.

He said candidates for a move were those "with minimal connections to Westminster", while those with "a genuine need to live in Westminster such as those with children at crucial stages in their education or those with social care packages", a discretionary payment could be made to allow them to stay.

Shadow communities secretary Jack Dromey said the government's policies were "harming families and forcing them from their homes" and as private rents in London had risen by 7% in 2011.

When the housing benefit cap was announced in 2010, London's Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson said he would "not accept any kind of Kosovo-style social cleansing of London" adding: "The last thing we want to have in our city is a situation such as Paris where the less well-off are pushed out to the suburbs."

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +33

    Comment number 111.

    If the council can't afford to house them in usually better properties than can be afforded by lower paid workers, what should they do? Sling them on the streets, build Victorian workhouses, or offer them the chance of a reasonable home in a cheaper area? I would choose the potteries environment over inner city London any time.

  • rate this
    +8

    Comment number 109.

    The issue may be real, however the timing of making a public noise is obviously political given the elections next week in London.

    Shipping people across the country is little better than ghetto creation, it isn't as if them arriving would creat new jobs, and will put extra stress on the local council social services. These are not employed people are they?

  • rate this
    +16

    Comment number 89.

    Every town and city in the Uk has a housing stock shortage with social housing pressures of their own where exactly are these households from london going to live are the families from london with their higher rates of benefit going to force the local people out of their housing this is a classic perverted view from London on the rest of the UK that there are abundant boarded up houses waiting.

  • rate this
    +98

    Comment number 71.

    Social cleansing? What a load of tosh! If someone is paying YOU to provide YOUR accomodation, you go where you are told. I would love to live in London. I have friends there and miss it terribly. But I can't afford it, so I don't. So why should my taxes fund homes where even I can't afford to live? People need a reality check and to be grateful that you have a home regardless of geography.

  • rate this
    +75

    Comment number 30.

    I agree with the cap on benefits but I also think there is a need for a cap on what rent landlords can charge.

 

Comments 5 of 8

 

More UK Politics stories

RSS

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • SkeletonRobot skeleton

    BBC Future discovers how a pair of bionic legs helped get Daniel Fukuchi back on his feet

Programmes

  • Click reporter Jen Copestake looks at a smart mirrorClick Watch

    From the mirror offering beauty advice to next gen robot vacuums - the connected home of the future

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.