Facing an uncertain future

Over the last 24 months, the Labour government has consistently held the line that no section of society will ever lose out as a result of its various welfare reform proposals.

From disabled people facing significant changes to their benefits to middle England taxpayers with an eye on their wage packets, everyone's a winner under Tony's benevolent gaze. Until now, it seems.

Few could predict the unprecedented response to the consultation paper Supporting People. A united housing world - which provides housing support for over a million tenants - warned that the proposed new funding regime would fail.

There was collective outrage, then, when social security secretary Alistair Darling told Parliament that the plans were to go ahead unchanged (Housing Today, 1 April).

Nobody, it seems, was quite prepared for last week's alarming snub. Desperation is widespread, and campaigners throughout the sector are determined to drive home a clear message: the funding of support costs - already regarded as something of a house of cards - is coming tumbling down. The new system will be inefficient, bureaucratic and will leave vulnerable people paying for vital services when the money runs out. Services will be affected. People will be affected.

Sheltered housing providers feel particularly put out by the plans. "It is going to be a nightmare, a bureaucratic nightmare. It just defies belief," worries Imogen Parry, chair of The Emerging Role of Sheltered Housing group.

Rather than people choosing to go into sheltered housing schemes because they desire the additional comfort of having a warden on site, they will have to go through an assessment procedure. It is widely held that retaining sheltered housing within housing benefit is a simple way of keeping it accessible.

Otherwise sheltered housing is only going to be provided for the most vulnerable tenants, says Local Government Association head of housing Paul Lautman. "People will stay in their four bed houses." Besides, changing the administration, according to the National Housing Federation, will be disproportionately expensive.

The foyer movement is enjoying a period of peak growth, together with high-profile political support from Chancellor down, and Foyer Federation chief executive Carolyn Hayman is keen to remain hopeful about the proposals. But she admits it is difficult. "When so much money is at stake and things are already fragile it is hard not to be worried. That's the bottom line.

"Foyers are in a very ropey financial position already. We are concerned that there is a risk that some foyers will have so little financial support that they will close."

Suspicions of the local authority's discretion in managing the grant, and of a pecking order emerging, do not help.

Conflict between social services, often large and powerful bodies, and housing departments are daily occurances, and housing associations are conscious of possibilities they will not be on a level playing field.

For foyers, and other providers of support for young people, fears of a pecking order are particularly strong. "Young people won't get a very high political priority," says Hayman.

The Housing Corporation is already flexing its muscles to deter would-be bullying.

"RSLs have got an excellent track record on providing for groups of individuals who have not had a high degree of provision from local authorities," Simon Dow, corporation deputy chief executive, says. "We will have to work very hard to make sure that the new arrangements don't disadvantage vulnerable groups."

Despite their combined role as both providers and funders at once, councils also fear the worst. "There is a risk that services will be jeopardised," concedes Lautman. "A cash limited grant will put pressure on services, with not enough money to go round."

He says many landlords, councils included, are largely unaware that normal, day-to-day activities such as debt counselling, anti-social behaviour or benefits advice are included in the proposals.

"There are still many providers out there who don't already recognise the full implications. People think it is just about specialist housing schemes, but it will be more difficult for local authorities to use their stock most effectively."

Clearly expecting a backlash, Darling told Parliament last week: "In taking work forward we will work closely with interested parties to take into account concerns raised about the detail of the proposals and develop the new arrangements in a way that ensures the long-term objective becomes a workable and effective reality."

Given that the concerns of more than 500 organisations during consultation might as well have been invisible for all the account that was taken of them, many feel these assurances ring a little hollow.

Nevertheless, as Parry points out, changes could eventually be made by officials "when they do go into the detail about how it won't work, or will work at such a price."

Simulations of the proposed system would expose its fundamental flaws, according to Hayman. "If they were able to do some simulations, which is quite important before the whole thing goes live, the simulations will highlight the issues that some of us are concerned about and maybe that will bring them home to government."

And hopes are also pinned on the overwhelmingly negative response to the plans winning out in the end. "We feel that government is, as a result of consultation, very sensitive as to the political need to make sure that vulnerable people are provided for," says Dow.

Everyone recognises that the housing benefit system wasn't perfect, but generally speaking the proportions of rent which pay for these services are relatively small. The problem with Supporting People is it is over-ambitious, or, as Lautman says: "It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

"It is quite incredible that the proposals are being taken forward when they have wholly inadequate details," he adds. "The trouble is, [officials] made the paper in collaboration between departments, but they did it in isolation from the wider world."

The entire debacle marks a rare occasion: New Labour has been caught off-guard on welfare reform. A clearly defined group is emerging as a potential loser.

The government's PR machine was doubtlessly alarmed at the prospect of pensioners, people with mental health problems or those escaping domestic violence making the headlines as victims of New Labour policy.

Interestingly, there was no mention of sheltered housing, and therefore images of frail older people, within official press releases. This, coupled with the timely smokescreen of war in the Balkans - meant the announcement managed largely to escape the attention of a national press eager for a little Blair-baiting.

As the Nato bombing campaign dominated the news, campaigners could only surrender to the fact that the funding of supported housing is about to enter, unarmed, a risky and unexplored no-man's land.