Govt defeated on housing benefit motion |

Wednesday 14th December 2011 | 15:43

Govt defeated on housing benefit motion

By Isabel Hardman

The Government has been defeated by a majority of 68 in the House of Lords on a housing benefit cut for social tenants who underoccupy their homes.

Peers voted 258 in favour and 190 against a motion by crossbench peer Lord Best, which called for housing benefit to be paid in full for claimants who cannot move to another smaller property or who have only one extra bedroom. The proposed cut will mean housing benefit is only paid on the bedrooms that tenants use.

Speaking at the report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, Lord Best told the Chamber: "Houses and flats provided by councils and housing associations represent people's homes: they are not transit camps... but places to settle and put down roots".

He was joined by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers in condeming the cut and calling on the Government to change its plans. Of those who voted against the Government on the amendment, there were 159 Labour votes, 14 Lib Dem, 72 crossbench, one Conservative, three Bishops and nine other votes. The one Conservative peer who voted against his Government on the housing benefit cut was Lord Newton of Braintree.

Responding to the vote Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne said: "I hope this cross-bench amendment will force the government to think a little harder about a sensible way forward".

Lord Best also claimed that the cut, which will come into effect from 2013, and will mean that social tenants will only receive housing benefit for the number of bedrooms they actually use in their home, would not solve the problem of underoccupancy in social housing. He said: "Paradoxically I think the new measure will also make the question of addressing underoccupancy in council and housing association homes more difficult."

"The penalty will hinder, not help the social landlords to tackle underoccupancy sensibly," he said. His amendment, supported by Labour peers and the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, called for "the housing cost element of Universal Credit [to] be met in full for claimants, where a household has no more than one spare bedroom, and where no other suitable accommodation is available".

The Bishop told the House that the cut as it currently stood in the legislation would affect families whose young children of different genders did not share bedrooms. He argued that it would also discourage foster caring because carers would not be able to place children in separate rooms.

He said: "This amendment will provide the flexibility so that families can live the sorts of lives that most of us take for granted."

Labour's Baroness Hollis told the Chamber that the Government knew most tenants would not find available smaller homes to move to: "For most, even if they want to downsize, they can't even if they are pensioners who can't heat their homes. They can't, and DWP knows it. The smaller flats are simply not there to move to."

She added: "The department expects that 85% of all of these tenants will stay put and take the cut in housing benefit because they have no alternative... the Government is counting on people not moving despite telling them that they should."

Baroness Hollis also warned of "debts, arrears and pass-the-parcel" as a result of the cut. Tenants would be evicted and re-housed in expensive temporary accommodation, she warned.

The amendment also received support from Liberal Democrat Lord Kirkwood, who said he would rebel against the Government and vote in favour of it. He said: "There is no what I would call sensible transitional protection for this measure."

Though he was "determined to stay best friends" with Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud, the Lib Dem peer said the arrangements currently put in place by the minister did not sufficiently protect tenants. "People will hit a brick wall, and what will happen is arrears will spike," he warned. He accused the Prime Minister of "training his big bazooka at the 670,000 social rented sector households on 1 April 2013, and there will be absolutely no place in my view for them to go". He was joined by fellow Lib Dem Lord Stoneham, who warned that "it is actually madness to come in on April 2013: we've already heard it referred to as bedroom tax", and insisted that the Government must change its plans for the cut.

Lord Newton also warned that forcing people to downsize would put pressure on households in rural areas. "I think the rural effects of this are not to be underestimated and my guess is that my colleagues in the Commons will face a barrage if and when this policy comes in.

"If this comes into effect less than two years before an election... it won't last five minutes when it starts."

Lord Freud argued that the cut was essential to cutting the Government's housing benefit bill. He said: "We cannot avoid having to make these choices. I assure noble Lords these decisions have not been taken lightly."

He announced an additional £30m in the discretionary housing payment for 2013/14 to help households facing a shortfall between their housing benefit and their rent, which he claimed would help 40,000 claimants. But he argued that it was "reasonable to ask for a contribution toward the rent where there is, by definition, some degree of underoccupation".

Leave a comment...

Paul Wilding

20:57 |
14 Dec 2011
0

Sue, arrangements for private tenants already take into account the number of bedrooms they "need". Most private tenants receive Local Housing Allowance. The amount received is based on the 30th percentile of local rents for the particular size of property they are deemed to require (1 bedroom, 2 bedroom etc), although since April this year an allowance is made if a non-resident carer is required.

In Oxford we have a shortage of 2 bedroom properties. This can mean someone finds themselves in a larger property than they need, but will only get paid at the two bedroom rate.

Hope this helps

Paul

julia

08:27 |
15 Dec 2011
0

In South Oxford we have a shortage of 3 bed properties, and 2 bed, and 1 bed and studio flats - waiting lists of well over 4,000, plus those for who it's pointless being on the system. The 'statutory overcrowding' criteria has not changed since the 1930s and requires tenants to use living rooms, kitchens and bathrooms as extra rooms before being entitled to a larger property. Entitlement alone is insufficient as there are not enough properties.

Mizar

19:04 |
14 Dec 2011
Recommended
3

There is only one word to describe this unspeakable government. They are evil. I am glad to find some of the peers putting a stop to parts of this Bill.

Lynn Brookes

09:49 |
15 Dec 2011
0

Lord Fraud trying to introduce this, when opposed by my team, Mr Daft replied and now Lord Best is opposing, it really just sums it up.

Christine

10:15 |
15 Dec 2011
0

This is a big relief, but wait for it, they will come up with some other daft idea.If they want people to downsize goverment needs to put much more money in to bringing empty properties into use, so there is homes to move into.

Sarah L

10:27 |
15 Dec 2011
0

Thank goodness for the revising chamber and their common sense. I hope they will be able to be as sensible in revising and rejecting unworkable and damaging parts of the Health and Social Care Bill. Unraveling our society as we know it is the word that comes to my mind.

susan leonard

10:58 |
15 Dec 2011
Recommended
1

i pray to god..that something is done for the private rented sector..i live in a tiny two up...two down...i am now over a hundred pounds a month short on my rent..i have 2 people who take turns in staying with me...none of them claim carers...i pay them the extra i get..it seems fairer..so because none of them claim carers ..i cannot have the extra bedroom rate...but even so..if one did claim it...they are full time carer for me..are in receipt of benefits..and would actually be caring for me for £27 pounds a week...but that does not help the second person who cares for me...they would be doing it for nothing...this government has attacked the vulnerable of this society...my two carers do a good and demanding job..if the state or local authority did it..it would cost a lot more...and yet they deny me my rent...which at a hundred pounds per week..is reasonable..compared to some rents...they are slowly killing me off...

Jill Walsh

11:05 |
15 Dec 2011
Recommended
1

At last someone has recognised Social Housing Tenants as people who have a right to a stable home life "with roots".

Samantha Butler

11:38 |
15 Dec 2011
Recommended
1

The reason that the housing benefit bill is so high, is because a lot of people have no access to social housing. Instead they rent privately, with much higher rents. If you go back to Mrs Thatchers Government, that sold off approx. 3/4 of the social housing stock, with only 3% of the money being used for new social housing projects. I am a private tenant whose housing benefit leaves me with a short fall for paying my rent. With the changes to housing benefit in January 2012, the deficit will be much higher. I may not be able to keep up rent payments and may end up in temporary accomadation, which costs the council a vast sum of money. The reason that I need to rely on housing benefit is that I am disabled and unable to work. My current housing is inadequate for my needs, due to my disabilities. Month after month I am bidding on social housing properties, I am too far down the list, even though I have been placed in the highest band, i.e. priority.

Rodney Thiis

19:44 |
15 Dec 2011
Recommended
1

I am a live in carer for my fiance, she has mobility problems and mental health illness. We have moved around for years due to bad living places, and finally we found this 2 bedroomed house through a house exchange. We dont want to move again, as we have had years of it. I pray that the government can see how much we like our home. They have,nt had to live a life like ours. There are some bad areas, we have lived with bad neighbours etc. I just want to settle for myself and my fiance. This talk is making her very upset and bringing on a relapse in her condition.

Rosey

20:39 |
15 Dec 2011
Recommended
1

Its good that they are finally seeing some sense, at least its a start. I live in a 3 bedroomed house although the 3rd bedroom is tiny. Due to my disabilities I cannot go downstairs frequently so this room has been made into a living room for me. Just enough room for a comfy chair, tv and kettle. My second bedroom is used by my carer. She stays most nights as I need care. I have tried to get a smaller property especially on the ground floor so I am not a prisoner in the upstairs of my home. I am on all the housing lists. The last time I enquired at my housing office the lady laughed at me and said dont hold your breath love !!! I am willing to move but theres nowhere to move to. Why should I be penalised for the lack of housing options. On a final note I wonder how many mps who are claiming their housing allowances have spare rooms they do not use. I am guessing there would be quite a few. Would they be applying the no extra bedroom rules to them?? After all they are taking taxpayers money to fund their homes. We are all in it together eh !!!

cait ni cadlaig

15:28 |
16 Dec 2011
0

What can I say Well build 1,000s of smaller properties with readymade disability facilities 9(just in case) then you will enable people to move But they will most likely have no support from their community and it will cost more to enable them to live in their houses .There is another point for disabled ad elderly people who need overnight care The carer will have to sleep on the sofa or floor (not acceptable) most agencies insist on a seperate bedroom for staff Need I go on Finally as was mentioned People who through no fault of their own will end up homeless because they cannot afford £13 from JSA as well s pay for food ,clothing and utilities You are certainly a group of uninformed ,money mad idiots There is no other explanation except that possibly they (gov) think that unless you are of millionaire statue ,you are not human so therefore undeserving Why no gas the poor????

derek rusher

08:31 |
22 Dec 2011
0

My wife & I exchanged a 3 bedroomed house for our current 2 bedroomed flat, for which we receive a modest reduction in our rent. We will be most aggreived to lose some of that in 2013.

Stanley Marmont

08:08 |
24 Dec 2011
0

I am 73, as a voluntary MOD tracking Russian ICBMs the cold underground for 24 hour shifts seriously damaged my lungs during the cold war years, I live in a small 2 bedroom bungalow, when it is warm am able to sleep with my wife in elevated bed (singles), when it is very cold and my lungs are infected I use the second bedroom as it faces into the sun. I am also a retired Special Constable No 619 Norfolk Constabulary, when fit I also was a Voluntary Air Training Officer with Swaffham Norfolk ATC Corps. We never had a lot of money as my work was in Special Needs as a School Caretaker, but we loved working and helping. Life is not always about how important you are, or how much you earn, no one who reads this note will love my England more than we have. I am also a returned serviceman who served in the Australian Army in 1950s & 60s. We have lived here for 22 years we pay some rent some is paid by council, forcing us to move to a 1 bedroom flat would kill us. My lovely wife is nearly 86 years old. All we want is to be left alone for the short time we have left, not worry we will be thrown out in less than two years time. Stanley Marmont Political Liasion Officer K17 GMB Kings Lynn Branch. Happy new year for all you are doing to keep us all safe in our old age. Thank you all.

Username:
Password:
Remember Me
Forgotten details?

The Live Wire

+What we do...

+Sections

+Explore

+PRO

+On the Go

Find your MP

PoliticsHome News

Live as it happens