Why all MPs should vote against the indefensible bedroom tax

The punitive penalty presents appalling dilemmas for vulnerable families. Ministers should finally accept that they have lost the argument.

Today Labour is calling time on David Cameron’s hated Bedroom Tax with a vote in parliament for its immediate repeal. The tenuous case for the policy now lies in tatters, with mounting evidence that it is not only flagrantly unfair but also counterproductive as a way of controlling benefit costs.

The 660,000 families affected include 400,000 disabled people and 375,000 children. Through no fault of their own, some of Britain’s hardest-pressed low-income households are expected to find, on average, an extra £720 a year – or face losing their home.

This punitive penalty presents appalling dilemmas for vulnerable families already struggling to survive at the sharp end of David Cameron’s cost-of-living crisis. The loss of income is equivalent to losing all child benefit paid for a second or subsequent child – or more than the average cost of a daily school meal. The result has been more people resorting to Food Banks, according to the Trussell Trust, as well as expanding opportunities for payday lenders.

Surveys suggest that as many as half of those affected are already behind with their rent – the mounting arrears further destabilising the precarious finances of local housing providers. And the costs of evicting those who can’t pay, and dealing with the resulting homelessness, could be astronomical.

Many of those who do move are ending up in smaller but more expensive properties in the private sector – which means the housing benefit bill footed by the taxpayer is higher, not lower. Analysis by York University’s Centre for Housing Policy suggests the government has underestimated the costs by £160m a year.

Meanwhile, because overcrowding and "under-occupation" do not neatly match up within areas, the affordable social homes deemed too large for them are often left empty or even marked for demolition. All this at a time when housebuilding is at its lowest level since the 1920s.

The chair of the Lochaber Housing Association, a Mr Di Alexander, put the point perfectly when he said the Bedroom Tax is "particularly unfair in that it penalises both our tenants and ourselves for not being able to magic up a supply of smaller properties, particularly those with only one bedroom, when we have been funded by the Government since our inception to build nothing smaller than two-bedroom flats and houses." It’s just a shame that his son, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, doesn’t seem to understand.

Meanwhile, DWP ministers have tied themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible. Lord Freud has said that if "substantial" numbers were expected to move into the private sector "we would not be implementing this change", but has also conceded that that "over the past decade, the social rented sector has built virtually no single bedrooms".

Esther McVey has suggested that three-bedroom properties should be "modified into one and two-bedroom houses"– leaving some to wonder if those affected by the Bedroom Tax should be getting out their sledgehammers to avoid paying it.

Today, MPs on all sides of the House have an opportunity to dissociate themselves from this dog’s breakfast of a policy. We have identified funds that could be used to cover any costs of reversing it today, by reversing tax cuts which will benefit the wealthiest and promote avoidance, and addressing the tax loss from disguised employment in construction. And if this incompetent and out-of-touch government won’t accept it has lost the argument and repeal this ineffective and iniquitous measure today, the British people will soon have an opportunity to elect a Labour government that will.

Rachel Reeves is shadow work and pensions secretary

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith speaks at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester last month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Getty
Show Hide image

You may call me a monster – but I'm glad that girl's lemonade stall got shut down

What's wrong with hard-working public servants enforcing perfectly sensible regulations?

Who could fail to be moved by the widely shared tears of a five year old whose innocent lemonade stall was brutally shut down by evil bureaucrats? What sort of monster would not have their heartstrings tugged by the plaintive “I've done a bad thing” from a girl whose father tells us she “just wanted to put a smile on people's faces”?

Well me, actually.

There are half a million cases of food poisoning each year in the UK, and one of the reasons we have stringent controls on who can sell food and drink, especially in unsealed containers, is to try to cut those figures down. And street stalls in general are regulated because we have a system of taxation, rights and responsibilities in this country which underpins our functioning society. Regulation is a social and economic good.

It’s also pretty unfair to criticise the hard-working public servants who acted in this case for doing the job they are no doubt underpaid to do. For the council to say “we expect our enforcement officers to show common sense” as they cancelled the fine is all very well, but I’m willing to bet they are given precious little leeway in their training when it comes to who gets fined and who doesn’t. If the council is handing out apologies, it likely should be issuing one to its officers as well.

“But these are decent folk being persecuted by a nanny state,” I hear you cry. And I stand impervious, I’m afraid. Because I’ve heard that line a lot recently and it’s beginning to grate.

It’s the same argument used against speed cameras and parking fines. How often have you heard those caught out proclaim themselves as “law-abiding citizens” and bemoan the infringement of their freedom? I have news for you: if you break the speed limit, or park illegally, or indeed break health and safety or trading regulations, you are not a law-abiding citizen. You’re actually the one who’s in the wrong.

And rarely is ignorance an excuse. Speed limits and parking regulations are posted clearly. In the case of the now famous lemonade stand, the father in question is even quoted as saying “I thought that they would just tell us to pack up and go home.” So he knew he was breaking the rules. He just didn’t think the consequences should apply to him.

A culture of entitlement, and a belief that rules are for other people but not us, is a disease gripping middle Britain. It is demonstrated in many different ways, from the driver telling the cyclist that she has no right to be on the road because she doesn’t pay road tax (I know), to the father holding up his daughter’s tears to get out of a fine.

I know, I’m a monster. But hooray for the enforcers, I say.

Duncan Hothersall is the editor of Labour Hame