Under-occupancy Penalty (Nottingham) Debate

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

Under-occupancy Penalty (Nottingham)

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts
Monday 18th March 2013

(11 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lilian Greenwood Portrait Lilian Greenwood
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I wonder how Government Members sleep at night after what they have done.

The Minister might claim that the Government are protecting the most vulnerable, such as the individual my hon. Friend has just mentioned. Ministers have been saying that for months. It was only continued pressure from the Opposition Benches that forced them to concede that the Prime Minister’s assurances about protection for disabled children, foster parents and members of the armed forces were completely hollow and that exemptions needed to be put in place.

Unfortunately, to suggest that discretionary housing payment will provide the answer is disingenuous. Nationally, the DHP allocated for 2014-15 makes up less than 6% of the £2.2 billion in planned housing benefit cuts for the same year, and the Government have failed to provide any assurances on the level of DHP funding as part of the next spending review. The National Audit Office is critical of how the level of DHP funding has been determined, stating that

“it is not clear how the overall level of funding has been determined or whether it is likely to be sufficient to tackle the effects of reforms.”

Sheila Gilmore Portrait Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Has her council, like mine, considered trying to top up the DHP fund so that it can help people? Is this not simply a central Government cut being imposed on the shoulders of local government, because topping up the fund means a cut for councils? Also, the administration involved in the whole process is huge, and that is another cost for local government.