Bedroom tax 'defeated' in the House of Lords
The government has been defeated over controversial plans for a ‘bedroom tax’ for social housing tenants deemed to be underoccupying their homes.
Peers on Wednesday voted by 258 votes to 190 to accept an amendment to the Welfare Reform Bill from crossbench peer Lord Richard Best to water down the proposals.
The government had been hoping to cut £500 million a year from the housing benefit bill by introducing an average cut of £14 a week for working age households in social housing with one spare room or more.
Lord Best’s amendment allows tenants to receive full housing benefit if they have no more than one spare room or if no other suitable alternative accommodation is available.
Peers feared that the government’s stance would unfairly penalise tenants as there are not enough available properties for tenants to move into and that rent arrears would increase.
Lord Best, speaking in the debate, said: ‘Let’s not go down the unchartered road that is likely to add to the hardship of hundreds of thousands of our poorest citizens.’
Baroness Patricia Hollis said the government was expecting 85 per cent of tenants to stay and take the cut, a situation described by Baroness Hollis as ‘morally wrong and not decent’.
Other peers voiced concerns that the bill would unfairly penalise foster carers, families with two teenagers of the same sex and people who need an extra room for health reasons.
Lord Freud, the welfare reform minister, told peers that the ‘fiscal case driving the measure must not be ‘underestimated.’ He added: ‘The government believes it is reasonable to ask for some contribution when there is some degree of underoccupation.’
Lord Freud earlier announced £30 million of extra funding through discretionary housing payments, which are administered through councils on a case-by-case basis to enable disabled tenants who have had their homes significantly adapted to stay and to help families who foster children.
But it was not enough to prevent the bill from being amended.
The House of Commons will decide whether to accept the amendment at a later date.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (32)
josie owens | 14/12/2011 7:08 pm
It is not only unfair but crule to MAKE people move when they have lived in their homes for more than half of their adult life due to having any spare bedrooms. It must be against the Human Rights of People. I have two (spare rooms) but both are occupied at times by family or friends who need help to continue living on their own but at times need support. This is more of a saving to the goverment than having them put into homes or hospitals.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 14/12/2011 7:21 pm
WELL DONE THE LORDS!!!
BUT will the House of Trousers and Demonisers accept it?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Rider | 15/12/2011 0:32 am
The solution is simple - charge the market rent for a social property and then provide means-tested housing benefit to compensate for the higher rent payable.
Only if someone actually needs the larger home would they qualify for housing benefit to help pay for it.
If they don't need the large home but want to stay there for reasons of having lived there for an extended period (ref Josie's post) then they should be allowed to do so providing they pay the proper amount of rent that should be payable for such a property (defined by the open market rent for an equivalent property, not the artificially low social rent).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gavin Rider | 15/12/2011 0:38 am
Is an "unchartered road" the same as an unadopted highway?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Brown | 15/12/2011 9:26 am
If we get this through the House Of Commons it will be the first intelligent thing to come out of parliament for a long time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SocialHousingWorks | 15/12/2011 9:30 am
The solution is simple - charge the market rent for a social property and set the universal benefit at a flat rate for all. As soon as it was costing people money they could have in their pocket to pay for the spare rooms, they will want to move to a smaller house.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter Wicks | 15/12/2011 9:31 am
I wonder how many un-occupied rooms are in our two faced MPs homes....let them lead by example and have the public(whom they rob) look in their pads for empty rooms....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
SocialHousingWorks | 15/12/2011 9:34 am
The best bit of policy to come out of the HoP in a long time, and the stuffy old Lords meddle with it and we have a dogs breakfast which will be very difficult to administer.
On the bright side, if Labour get back into power they will be able to 'create' a few million new jobs - "no other suitable alternative accommodation is available assessment officers." We could even have a government department for it, and a raft of civil servants with their gold-plated pensions.
Don't worry about the cost because the hard working taxpayer will pay for it. They take us all for mugs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian Barker | 15/12/2011 9:39 am
Bedroom Tax ?
How about taxing all the 'Lords' of Manors and gigantic Country Houses with numerous surplus Bedrooms ? (Mostly unused) !
Along with Full Council Tax for Second / Third / Fourth / etc Homes !
As my father once said to me "Where does Need End & GREED begin" ??
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F451 | 15/12/2011 10:25 am
The 'no alternative accomodation' angle is important. In one sense it moves the onus on the landlord being able to provide the smaller home to fit the family, which is as it should be. It is maddness to say, 'you must downsize' when there are no smaller homes to move to.
The concern will be that the Government may take this ruling as a welcome addition to their methods of focing secure tenants into the hands of private landlords. A family needing two bedrooms can move into a HMO and rent two rooms, for instance. Whilst this may massively increase their rental cost and devastate their family life, it would achieve the government objectives of doing such.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment