Some thoughts on Housing Benefit.

Whilst I've not yet got my head round all the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review, I thought I'd share some thoughts on the proposed changes to Housing Benefit as this is shaping up nicely to be the first major argument within the coalition.

There are three areas in particular that seem to be causing controversy:

1) The move to reduce the maximum amounts of housing benefit payable for private sector rents. The most often quoted figure is £400 per week for a 4 bedroom house. In general, I would support the reduction of maximum levels, however, I think applying the same figure across the country despite wildly differing housing costs is a mistake. Hence the attention being paid to London and brewing spat between best chums Boris and Dave. (That sais talk of social cleansing and Kosovo by Boris and Labour politicians is offensive and should be avoided at all costs). Part of the problem here is that across the country there is a real shortage of larger social housing properties, following years of under-investment in housing by both previous goverments. Thus larger families are forced to seek homes through the private sector and pay private rents. Therefore maximum limits need to take into account market rental prices in the area (not averaged across the whole country).

2) The move to reduce Housing Benefit by 10% for those who've been on Job Seekers Allowance for more than a year. This is a move which, in my opinion, is wholly without justification. It is draconian, punitive and stigmatising and should be opposed and dropped. Especially in the current economic climate, being unemployed for a year is not a sign of not trying to find work and there are already enough stick measures in the JSA system, adding another one will produce no positive results and will add further pressure on those who already under too much.

3) Allowing Housing Associations to charge close to market rents for social housing in order to pay for more house building. The aim is right, but the measure might be self-defeating in terms of reducing the welfare bill. It will make many tennants more dependant on housing benefit and needing more money from the state in order to pay their rents, thus the welfare bill will in all likelihood increase.

A Brief Aside on Child Benefit

Again, in principle, I would support the removal of child benefit from those who need it the least, but from the way I understand it the proposals, could lead to a hugely unfair situation: a couple where both work and are paid just under the higher rate tax threshold (say 42.5K each, joint income £85k) would still be entitled to child benefit, but a family where only one works but is paid just into the higher rate tax band (joint income £45k) would no longer be able to claim child benefit (if I've understood correctly). That ain't quite fair, is it.