We've heard a lot about the Government's headline-grabbing benefits cap, which threatens to plunge 50,000 larger families into poverty. But a separate and lesser known plan to punish social tenants for 'under-occupying' their homes is just as unfair and will hit more than 10 times that number of low-income people.
The Government has admitted its proposed 'size criteria', which forms part of the Welfare Reform Bill, will cost 670,000 tenants an average of £676 per year. That includes families who are deemed to have just one 'spare' bedroom, perhaps because their children have left home or a family member has died. Two thirds of those affected are disabled, the Department for Work and Pensions has admitted.
However, for households deemed to be under-occupying by two or more bedrooms, the 25% reduction in housing benefit being contemplated could cost families living in three-bedroom homes in London, for example, an eye-watering £1,385 per year.
And in the North West - where almost half of all working-age housing benefit claimants in the social sector face being hit by the penalty - families in similarly sized properties face losing up to £955 a year.
This bedroom tax will have disastrous implications for a huge number of people already struggling to make ends meet in this tough economic climate, including grandparents, disabled people and smaller families.
It's important to recognize that this blunt measure is not simply taking aim at families with bedrooms lying empty. For example, under the Government's restrictive new rules, same sex teenagers up to the age of 15 will be forced to share a bedroom. And foster parents will be affected even where their bedrooms are occupied by foster children, who for benefit purposes do not count as part of the household.
Others threatened with benefit cuts include lone parents or grandparents who use their 'spare' bedroom to share the care of their children or grandchildren, couples who sleep separately for medical reasons and disabled people who have had their homes specially adapted for their needs.
Crucially, that extra room often isn't 'spare'. It is the place a family carer stays when a parent is ill, or the space a teenage child needs for privacy and study. It is part of normal life. We believe that penalising some families for living the lives most people lead is unfair and unjust. Yet that is what is going to happen from April 2013 if the Welfare Reform Bill goes through unamended.
Of course, everyone understands the desire to make best use of our inadequate supply of affordable homes. But these families will be forced to choose between going into debt, struggling to meet payments by cutting back on essentials, or trying to move - even if no suitable alternative properties are available.
Ahead of the Bill's Report Stage in the House of Lords, which begins today, the National Housing Federation is calling on the Government to make the rules more flexible, to allow one additional bedroom above that permitted by the proposed criteria.
Crossbench peer Lord Best has tabled an amendment to this effect and we ask members of the House of Lords to support it.
Ciaran Devane: We Must not let the Welfare Reform Bill Penalise Cancer Patients
Helen Dent: Austerity Britain is Not a Fun Place For Families
Mike Dixon: Welfare Reform: Nice Idea but More Attention Needed
god help us all.
wes
A relative of mine is severely disabled and her spare bedroom is filled with equipment she needs on a day to day basis.
The idea that properties with spare bedrooms could be given to people who need more bedrooms simply doesnt stack up, because many of the properties with the spare bedrooms are in properties and in areas that families do not want. This of course is the reason why people with lower occupancy have been offered the property in the first place. By forcing people out of their homes all you would end up with is a load of EMPTY properties
Is obvious someone in the government has just looked at the statistics of spare bedrooms and over-crowding and jumped to the wrong conclusion without understanding the practicality of how it would actually work
If people are forced to move they will most likely have to leave the area altogether and take a property many miles away - probably even hundreds of miles away, destroying families, contacts, communities, and probably leading to greater poverty, unemployment, and debt which all ads up to greater cost to the taxpayer.
But I do feel sorry for those who have to pay an "eye-watering £1,385 per year" for an extra guest bedroom - or, I would if there was somewhere I could rent a bedroom for £1,385 per year (115.42 a month) in London.
I grew up in a three bed semi with two brothers and we all shared a room until well over twenty years of age. that is what life is like for the vast majority.
The mass sale of social housing should have been counteracted with new building to replace the loss. That is the best solution to the current mess- unless we all become Occupants in London and live in tents near St Pauls!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/02/greece-in-revolt-over-property-tax