The cost of housing benefit is £23bn per year and the Government has cut payouts to council tenants claiming such benefits who have unused bedrooms in their property. What Government refers to as the removal of the spare room subsidy, Labour terms the Bedroom Tax.
The Order Paper was instructive, as it contained the full text of Labour's motion (it was Opposition Day, meaning that Labour was able to set the agenda for business in the Commons). The text of Labour's motion for the debate read:
"That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes..." It continued for some time after this much along the same lines
Immediately after this on the Order Paper came the Government Amendment to the Labour motion, which read: "Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add 'notes the substantial structural deficit which was inherited from the previous Government and the need to get the nation's finances back into shape; further notes the need to bring expenditure on housing benefit under control; further notes that the reversal of this policy would cost the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year..." and so on.
Ian Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, under whose aegis Housing benefit falls, was not present at the debate, a point noted with some vim by his Labour Opposite number Rachel Reeves, who led the attack on the Bedroom Tax / Spare Room Subsidy. Her comments followed closely the themes set out by Labour on the Order Paper. The Chamber was around two thirds full at this time. On the Government front bench sat three MPs, on the Opposition bench, eight, of whom three were playing on their mobile phones.
Steve Webb, (Lib Dem, Thornbury and Yate) the Government Minister, made a defence of the government's housing benefit reform. He noted that the Government had trebled the amount of money paid to people facing difficulties on account of housing benefit reform, and that these people should go to their local authority, which has money to dispense.
A Labour MP stood and attacked the government in the strongest terms, calling its reform of housing benefit a "government attack on disadvantaged and disabled people."
David Crausby, (Lab, Bolton NE) who made these comments, continued by suggesting that this policy would be the defining failure of the present government. Where Callaghan had suffered the Winter of Discontent, Thatcher had been done in by the Poll Tax, Major the disastrous withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and Blair's legacy had been ruined by Iraq, so the present Government would forever live in infamy on account of the Bedroom Tax. It was a strong speech, though perhaps a little overblown. It was also arresting to hear a Labour MP speak of The Iraq war in such terms.
Heather Wheeler (Cons, S Derbyshire) angrily told the House that the way to ease in these housing benefit reforms was through good planning at local Council level. "For goodness' sake, start leading in your constituencies," she bellowed at the Opposition benches, who did not take kindly to this.
Jessica Morden, (Lab, Newport E) noted that there were proportionately more households in Wales than in any other area of the UK that are affected by the bedroom tax. Added to this, there are "nowhere near enough smaller properties for [tenants] to move into."
David TC Davies (Cons, Monmouth) produced the most remarkable performance of the debate, which reached something of a crescendo when he touched on the subject of "feckless fathers," a class of rascal that Davies suggested were fathering children left right and centre, children who were in turn driving up demand for social housing. "Drag them off... make them work," shouted Davies, a comment which presumably referred to the fathers, rather than the children.
His ire then became concentrated on the legions of 17-year-olds, who were being furnished with, as he put it, "love nests." His eyes then misted over somewhat as he recalled his own youth, in which love nests did not feature. "If I wanted to see my girlfriend," he informed the Mother of Parliaments, "I'd go and see her on a park bench in Newport." There was a stunned, slightly nervous ripple of laughter at this comment. Davies also covered subjects including the Bible, Abraham and Pret a Manger, the popular sandwich retailer. Davies sat down having left proceedings in a state of dilapidation.
Nowhere were the terms of the debate set out more clearly than on the order paper and to this concise statement of the parties' positions, the debate added little, other than to emphasise the yawning gap between the two parties. In the vote that followed, the Government won by a margin of 26 votes, a wafer-thin margin.The victory was predicted, even though its narrowness was not.
The debate showed one thing most clearly—that at its most fundamental level, Britain's politics is still driven by economic necessity.
The Order Paper was instructive, as it contained the full text of Labour's motion (it was Opposition Day, meaning that Labour was able to set the agenda for business in the Commons). The text of Labour's motion for the debate read:
"That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes..." It continued for some time after this much along the same lines
Immediately after this on the Order Paper came the Government Amendment to the Labour motion, which read: "Line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add 'notes the substantial structural deficit which was inherited from the previous Government and the need to get the nation's finances back into shape; further notes the need to bring expenditure on housing benefit under control; further notes that the reversal of this policy would cost the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year..." and so on.
Ian Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, under whose aegis Housing benefit falls, was not present at the debate, a point noted with some vim by his Labour Opposite number Rachel Reeves, who led the attack on the Bedroom Tax / Spare Room Subsidy. Her comments followed closely the themes set out by Labour on the Order Paper. The Chamber was around two thirds full at this time. On the Government front bench sat three MPs, on the Opposition bench, eight, of whom three were playing on their mobile phones.
Steve Webb, (Lib Dem, Thornbury and Yate) the Government Minister, made a defence of the government's housing benefit reform. He noted that the Government had trebled the amount of money paid to people facing difficulties on account of housing benefit reform, and that these people should go to their local authority, which has money to dispense.
A Labour MP stood and attacked the government in the strongest terms, calling its reform of housing benefit a "government attack on disadvantaged and disabled people."
David Crausby, (Lab, Bolton NE) who made these comments, continued by suggesting that this policy would be the defining failure of the present government. Where Callaghan had suffered the Winter of Discontent, Thatcher had been done in by the Poll Tax, Major the disastrous withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism and Blair's legacy had been ruined by Iraq, so the present Government would forever live in infamy on account of the Bedroom Tax. It was a strong speech, though perhaps a little overblown. It was also arresting to hear a Labour MP speak of The Iraq war in such terms.
Heather Wheeler (Cons, S Derbyshire) angrily told the House that the way to ease in these housing benefit reforms was through good planning at local Council level. "For goodness' sake, start leading in your constituencies," she bellowed at the Opposition benches, who did not take kindly to this.
Jessica Morden, (Lab, Newport E) noted that there were proportionately more households in Wales than in any other area of the UK that are affected by the bedroom tax. Added to this, there are "nowhere near enough smaller properties for [tenants] to move into."
David TC Davies (Cons, Monmouth) produced the most remarkable performance of the debate, which reached something of a crescendo when he touched on the subject of "feckless fathers," a class of rascal that Davies suggested were fathering children left right and centre, children who were in turn driving up demand for social housing. "Drag them off... make them work," shouted Davies, a comment which presumably referred to the fathers, rather than the children.
His ire then became concentrated on the legions of 17-year-olds, who were being furnished with, as he put it, "love nests." His eyes then misted over somewhat as he recalled his own youth, in which love nests did not feature. "If I wanted to see my girlfriend," he informed the Mother of Parliaments, "I'd go and see her on a park bench in Newport." There was a stunned, slightly nervous ripple of laughter at this comment. Davies also covered subjects including the Bible, Abraham and Pret a Manger, the popular sandwich retailer. Davies sat down having left proceedings in a state of dilapidation.
Nowhere were the terms of the debate set out more clearly than on the order paper and to this concise statement of the parties' positions, the debate added little, other than to emphasise the yawning gap between the two parties. In the vote that followed, the Government won by a margin of 26 votes, a wafer-thin margin.The victory was predicted, even though its narrowness was not.
The debate showed one thing most clearly—that at its most fundamental level, Britain's politics is still driven by economic necessity.
