Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Karen Buck Excerpts
Wednesday 27th February 2013

(11 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Webb Portrait Steve Webb
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The structural deficit, which is the part of the deficit that does not disappear as the economy grows, was estimated to be approximately £80 billion. That is what we have had to tackle, regardless of the ups and downs of the economy. That is the core deficit that the Labour party left us to deal with—these are Labour cuts.

Karen Buck Portrait Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm his own impact statement, which makes it clear that if this policy works and encourages people to downsize to smaller accommodation, there will be no savings? Will he explain to the House which of the two objectives he supports: saving money or encouraging downsizing?

Steve Webb Portrait Steve Webb
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I am afraid that the hon. Lady is not correct in saying that. There will be a range of responses to this change, which I will run through later in my remarks. Some people will stay where they are and will pay the shortfall; some people will use a spare room for a lodger or for sub-letting; some people will work or work more hours; and some people will move. Our impact assessment has a range of modelling on how people will respond, but it clearly includes people staying where they are and paying the shortfall—that is where the saving comes from.