Sent back

So here is the predictable pong to the Lords’ ping: the bedroom tax amendment rejected in the House of Commons.

The vote by 316-263 is hardly a surprise given the coalition’s majority in the Commons and the payroll vote. Even Sarah Teather voted with the government this time although there were at least nine Lib Dem rebels that I could count plus two Conservatives.

Work and pensions minister Chris Grayling dismissed the Lords amendments on straight financial grounds – ‘we simply do not have a blank cheque that will cover the costs of the amendments’.

He also rejected claims that the change could end up costing more money if many of the 670,000 social tenants affected decide to move to smaller, but more expensive, private lets on the grounds that the homes would then go to people in temporary accommodation.

But if any peers were listening in and marking the debate on points to report back next week there can be little doubt which side won.

Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem who never ceases to remind us that his constituency has the greatest proportion of social housing tenants in England, questioned why the government was refusing to exempt the categories of people who were being exempted from the benefit cap. Reassurances from Grayling that the government would continue a dialogue seemed enough to convince him to fail to vote either way rather than rebel.

Stephen Timms for Labour outlined the effect on terminally ill tenants who would not be helped by discretionary funds designed to help foster carers and disabled tenants with adapted homes. And he attacked the claim that the cut was somehow a work incentive: ‘Let us call a spade a spade. This is a spiteful cut in people’s income.’

Conservative rebel Andrew Percy – who must surely deserve some kind of housing award - said that yet again he could not support the measure. ‘When we talk about people’s homes we need to remember that they are exactly that – people’s homes, not just a public asset that we need to release.’

He was speaking from personal experience as a councillor trying to tackle under-occupancy on an estate in Hull. ‘It was incredibly complicated and difficult to deal with. It is a fallacy to think that we will suddenly be able to move all these people out into more suitable accommodation.’

Labour’s Frank Field, a supporter of other aspects of welfare reform, called this one ‘shameful’.

‘Anyone who has sat through debates on the Bill will know that the Government’s body language is totally different to that in respect of other measures. They have been forced to take this measure by the Treasury. It goes against all that the Bill tries to achieve, which is to work with the grain of human nature. This proposal, which has been forced on the Department for Work and Pensions, works against that grain.’

He demolished the government’s arguments one by one. ‘This is not a welfare reform measure. It will be a recruiting sergeant to the money lenders and will be looked on as an eviction measure.’

And Lib Dem rebel David Ward quoted the stats from the largest landlord in his Bradford constituency: with 3,800 under-occupied households it would take three years with no re-lets or new lets to re-house them all.

If parliamentary debates were scored on points like boxing matches, Grayling would have been stopped to save him further punishment. But unfortunately they are won on government majorities, the payroll vote and pressure on rebels.

And so, with thanks to those coalition MPs who did rebel, the ping-pong ball is sent back with interest to the Lords.