Housing: Underoccupancy Charge

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on tenants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

Both an impact and a quality impact assessment have already been published, although it remains too early to say how people are reacting to this change. We have commissioned a consortium to undertake a two-year monitoring of the effects of the policy. The research will include looking at the effects of the measures on supply issues, the impact on rural areas and the effects on financial circumstances and vulnerable individuals.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Social security sanctions claimants and cuts their benefits if they break the rules, say on JSA, in order to change their behaviour. But the 660,000 families affected, whose existing housing benefit is being cut by the bedroom tax, cannot change their behaviour because there is nowhere smaller for most of them to go. Two-thirds of them are, in any case, disabled, and may need the extra space. Discretionary housing payments, on which the Minister properly relies, can help only a minority even of disabled people. Does the Minister really think it fair to sanction existing tenants for misbehaviour when they have not misbehaved and when they cannot change their behaviour? Are we not punishing people who have done no wrong but who, as they face eviction, are having wrong done to them? Is that now social security’s definition of social security?