Crackdown on crisis loans is simultaneously dystopian and Victorian

Tesco-only crisis loans, and paternalism for the poor. Marvellous.

The Guardian reports on the expected deluge in demand for crisis help, which is leading a number of councils to invest unconventional measures for helping those most at need.

Patrick Butler writes:

Cuts next year to the social fund, which provides emergency aid to vulnerable people, mean that from April 2013 many councils will no longer be able to provide cash help to applicants. Instead they will offer "in kind" support such as referring clients to food banks and issuing electronic food vouchers.

Crisis loans – short-term financial aid for people in dire need – cost £230m in 2009-2010, but the coalition has devolved responsibility for the loans in England to councils, while simultaneously cutting the pot back to 2005 levels.

This means that the days of simply being handed the money you need to make it to the next pay day are over.

Instead, poor people should look forward to being treated as though they can't be trusted with money.

Butler writes:

Conservative-run Kensington and Chelsea council in London is proposing to issue credit-card style vouchers – or "gift cards" – in lieu of crisis loans, enabling recipients to buy items at certain shops, likely to be big retailers such as Tesco, Argos and Sainsbury's. Some councils will put blocks on the cards preventing the purchase of alcohol and cigarettes. . .

Households who would previously have been eligible for a community care cash grant will be instead offered vouchers for reconditioned beds, cookers and fridges redeemable at furniture recycling charities.

But it is the plans to refer crisis loan applicants to food banks that will cause most controversy.

Crisis loans distributed in the form of gift cards which can only be redeemed in Tesco is the stuff of dystopian sci-fi, and giving poor people money while preventing them from spending it on alcohol and cigarettes is straight out of the Victorian age.

If you can help it, probably best to try and not be poor for a while.

A food bank in upstate New York. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.