Lords restrict the reach of ‘bedroom tax’ proposals

By CRAIG BROWN
Published on Wednesday 15 February 2012 00:59

PEERS have imposed new restrictions on the government’s proposals for a “bedroom tax” on council tenants with spare rooms, accusing it of hitting the most vulnerable, but backed down over changes to other parts of the coalition’s controversial welfare shake-up.

The Lords defeat over the cut in housing benefit for tenants in under-occupied properties sets up a second showdown with the Commons over the proposals.

But peers resisted making further changes to the Welfare Reform Bill, which puts in place a £26,000 benefits cap and introduces a new, simplified universal credit to replace a complex range of payments.

A rebellion by six Liberal Democrat peers helped inflict a narrow defeat on the government over the bedroom tax, which will now not affect the disabled, war widows and foster carers unless they refuse to take up an offer of a suitable alternative home.

Peers voted by 236 to 226, majority ten in favour of the amendment by Lord Best, which he insisted was targeted at those who needed help.

He warned that families on low incomes hit by the bedroom tax, which would see a 14 per cent reduction in housing benefits for having a spare room or a 25 per cent reduction for having more than one extra bedroom, could be forced to use payday lenders or loan sharks to make up the shortfall.

“While older tenants may have put aside a bit, few will be able to cope when faced with a new tax of £728 every year on top of the rises in their heating bills and other costs,” he said.

Labour’s Baroness Hollis of Heigham backed Lord Best and said the government’s cuts were hitting the most vulnerable.

She told peers: “Families with a disabled child can lose £14 a week while most of us enjoy a tax-free winter fuel allowance, or find for the second year running that our council tax has been frozen.

“Not a penny of these cuts are falling on me, and I suspect on very few of you, and yet we are asking disabled families and families with disabled children to carry those cuts for us.”

Tory former social security minister Lord Newton of Braintree warned that the government was “playing a very dangerous political game without quite knowing what will hit them when this comes into force” in April next year.

The government comfortably saw off an attempt by Labour to make the benefit cap vary on a regional basis, which was defeated by 223 votes to 134, a majority of 89.

Defending the cap, Lord Freud said: “We firmly believe that it is a serious flaw in the current system to pay some claimants more money when they are out of work than they could reasonably expect to earn from working full-time.”

Peers backed down over calls for cancer patients to be given extra time on sickness benefit before being stripped of the payment after Lord Freud outlined work the Government had been doing with Macmillan Cancer Support to improve the system.

The Government also offered to review the way severely disabled children are treated in the transition to its new welfare system.

The Bill heads back to the Commons next week for MPs to consider the new changes to the legislation.

Comments

There are 5 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

5

IanW

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM

paulr #3 - That would have been the level I suggested as well and those receiveing benefit should not be given more than what a low paid worker earns (and pays tax on). If the threshold is higher than people would be encouraged to simply give up work and live on benefits as they receive more. Ultimately this would lead to everyone giving up work as the cap is based on the 'average' earnings which would rise as no-one is earning below this level.

• Report Unsuitable

4

Willie Boy

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Good old Tories getting the boot in whilst the corporate barons coin it in. Yes, the Nasti party is back but not for much longer will Scotland be under the yolk of Westminster Tory rule.

• Report Unsuitable

3

paulr

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:14 AM

The benefits cap of 26,000 is too high, the cap should be the same as the minimum wage and no more, unless there are disabilities involved. Why should people on unemployment benefit get more than people who work for a living?

• Report Unsuitable

2

Guga

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:28 AM

What are you smoking Charlie?

• Report Unsuitable

1

Charles Linskaill

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 01:10 AM

Our bedroom tax Suzie Tramp cheep drink Suzie teen will always way find Salmond Alex madness utter !

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.