Housing Benefit

John Healey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Esther McVey]

Not just yet. I will finish what I am saying.

Why would that group have been exempted? Why would preferential treatment have been given to a set of people who had been on benefits for 17 years? When we have put protection in place, we have sought easement for four sets of people. Foster carers are eligible for an additional bedroom. Parents who have adult children in the armed forces who usually live with them and who could be away deployed on operations but come back to their room would be exempted. Disabled claimants or their partners who require a visiting overnight carer are eligible for an extra room. Severely disabled children who would ordinarily be expected to share a room but who could not would be exempted. We have therefore set out who would require easement. That should not be provided, through some loophole, for people who were never meant to be exempted. It was never intended that people who had been on benefits for 17 years should be exempted.

[John Healey]

The Minister has used the words “misguided” and “loophole”. She told me in answer to a parliamentary question in January that

“we estimate the numbers affected are likely to be fewer than 5,000”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 522W.]

In Rotherham and Barnsley, however, one in 14 of all housing benefit claimants has been wrongly hit by the bedroom tax. That suggests that there are nearly 50,000 such claimants across the country. Will she now admit that Ministers have massively underestimated the numbers who have been hit and massively underplayed the difficulties and distress that have been caused?

[Esther McVey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer that question. I looked into the freedom of information request and the numbers that had been obtained, and I was assured categorically that there was no way the Opposition’s figures could add up regarding claimants who were continuously on benefits while remaining in the same accommodation. When I spoke to various housing associations and local authorities, they were somewhat surprised, because they had given the numbers of people who might be affected and the numbers of cases they were still investigating, but the Opposition had added them together to try to multiply the numbers. When we answered the question on the numbers, the figure we gave at that time—5,000—was the best we could do. It is incorrect to say that the Opposition have those numbers; that is not the case.