Over the last few days Government Ministers have been presenting a lot of misinformation around the £26,000 household benefit cap. As this is debated in the Lords (along with two of Z2K’s amendments) later today our Chief Executive Joanna Kennedy has responded to some of the points made by Iain Duncan Smith.

Those who support the caps all seem to do so on the basis of misleading information fed to them by Iain Duncan Smith and the government,

No campaigners are arguing on the basis that homelessness means having to share a room and it is completely dishonest to say that they are.

The policy is expressed to be about driving people into work but of the 56,000 families affected only a proportion are capable of work. The rest are mothers of young children ,other carers or those who are ill but not long term disabled . Many are also already working part time.

Comparing £ 26000 benefit income with the gross average income of someone in work is a completely false comparison. The only kind of household which would receive that level of benefit is one with a number of children living in the private rented sector London or some other very expensive area. An equivalent family in work would be likely to receive substantial benefits on top of its earned income because it is not possible for a family of that kind to live on that income. The only meaningful comparison is between the household income of a similar household in a similar region in and out of work.

£26000 is not a lavish income for those relatively few who receive it because almost all of it goes to a landlord. A family with 3 children living in London in a 3 bed roomed property ( i.e with 2 children sharing ) would be likely to pay £340 pw ( the capped level of housing benefit) rent i.e £ 17680 in rent.. The average gas and electricity bill for that size household n London is £1200 and the average council tax £1200. That leaves them with £113 ,84 pw for food ,clothes , travel , household expenditure and phone for 5 people. It is very difficult indeed for anyone to manage on that income .

No one with any sense would come to England for our benefits ( leaving aside the fact that it is almost impossible to do that ). Our benefit levels are amongst the lowest in Western Europe and our cost of living amongst the highest .

The answer is said to be for these households to move to cheaper areas .However apart from the whole problem of breaking up support networks , disrupting children’s education etc the areas with low rents are those with no jobs which undermines the stated aim of the policy.

If Iain Duncan Smith really believes that this policy is in the best interests of the poor as he proclaims then it is difficult to understand why he describes it so misleadingly. It is also disappointing that these points never seem to be put to him in interview which is one of the reasons why there is such widespread misunderstanding about this issue