Main Menu News Features Your news Opinion 24housing Jobs Directory Iain Duncan Smith accuses universal credit and bedroom tax opponents of getting their facts wrong 24DASH.COM Logo Published by Jon Land for 24dash in Central Government and also in Housing, Universal Credit Tuesday 4th November 2014 - 12:44pm Share this story 13 Iain Duncan Smith marvels at success of universal credit and bedroom tax Iain Duncan Smith marvels at success of universal credit and bedroom tax Iain Duncan Smith insisted universal credit was doing really well and the bedroom tax was decent and fair as he was once again forced to defend his welfare reforms in the House of Commons. Facing criticism from MPs, including UKIPs Douglas Carswell, the Work and Pensions Secretary batted away accusations that universal credit was costly and behind schedule, the benefit cap was forcing people to move out of London and the bedroom tax was a failing policy. In a heated session, IDS made some accusations of his own making specific reference to his Labour opposite number Rachel Reeves visit to a job centre in Leeds during which she stayed for half an hour then disappeared without talking to anyone there. Here, from Hansard, are the highlights of an entertaining if sometimes surreal debate. The benefit cap Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP): As my right hon. friend will know, the benefit cap is encouraging some people to move out of London, where rents are high, to areas such as Clacton and Thanet. Does he agree that local councils should be able to act to discourage benefit migration of that kind? Iain Duncan Smith: There has been very little movement of more than about five miles from people’s existing homes as a result of the benefit cap. Most people have settled, and many—two thirds—have either gone back to work or found alternative employment. Let me say to the hon. gentleman that there is something called the discretionary housing payment, and his local council, like any other, can make decisions about how it modifies the process. It is up to councils to do that, and we leave it with them. Universal credit Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): The flagship of welfare reform was supposed to be universal credit. The Secretary of State’s former adviser told Radio 4 last week that the Secretary of State had known that the project was going badly wrong since May 2012, but he continued to tell the House that it was “exactly on track”. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee expects IT write-offs to exceed half a billion pounds after the election. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s estimate? Iain Duncan Smith: Yet again, the right hon. gentleman has got his facts completely wrong. The reality is that, as was announced only a few weeks ago, universal credit is not only doing well, but is to be rolled out nationally. The right hon. gentleman may be smiling because he has the idea that Labour might somehow get into government, and might inherit a success. I can tell him that Labour will not get into government, but universal credit will get more people back to work. It is already the case that it will give the economy net benefits of more than £30 billion, and there will be direct benefits of some £9 billion a year as a direct result of the roll-out that we are planning successfully. Stephen Timms: According to page 34 of the “21st Century Welfare” Green Paper, “The IT changes that would be necessary to deliver” universal credit “would not constitute a major IT project.” Is not the problem — as I pointed out to him at the time — that the Secretary of State failed to grasp the scale of the undertaking at the outset, and that hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted as a result? Iain Duncan Smith: Again, the right hon. gentleman is wrong. No money has been wasted. The roll-out means that, with all the work that we are doing, the vast majority is reusable through the digital system. I should be happy to invite him into my office to discuss the issue; the door has always been open to him. Let me also say this, however. I wish that the Opposition would stop trying to play silly games and would recognise that this benefit, which is now being rolled out successfully and whose national roll-out has been announced, will be a massive benefit for those who are seeking work and those who are in work. It is time that the Opposition sat down with jobseekers and those who run the jobcentres, and got their story straight. The hon. member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) spent about half an hour in a jobcentre, and then disappeared without talking to anyone there. The bedroom tax Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of the number of people subject to the under-occupancy penalty who have moved into a smaller home since the introduction of that penalty. Iain Duncan Smith: The latest published figures showed that, as a result of various actions, 65,000 people were no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. As at December 2013, around 22,000 had downsized or moved a year ago. New figures to be published in due course show that if that trend continues, up to 50,000 will have moved or downsized by now, with the total no longer affected even higher. Julie Hilling: The justification for the cruel and heartless bedroom tax is that it would force people to move into smaller homes. As only about 5% of people hit by the tax have been able to move, not least because in areas such as mine there are no smaller properties to move to, does the Secretary of State accept that this policy has manifestly failed? Iain Duncan Smith: Actually, I do not, and by the way I think the hon. lady’s figures are not correct. I gave her higher figures even for last December. The rationale for the policy was fairness. The previous government left us with the situation where some on housing benefit in the private sector were not allowed to occupy houses that had extra rooms, so balancing that is fair. Getting housing benefit spending under control after it nearly doubled in cash terms under the previous government, and helping those living in overcrowded accommodation while we build more houses, giving them a chance to move into houses where they can fit their families—that is decent and fair. Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): Given that, according to recent surveys by social landlords, more than half the people impacted by the bedroom tax are now in arrears, what advice would the Secretary of State give those social landlords, particularly housing associations, about the unsustainable financial position they now find themselves in? Iain Duncan Smith: Of course, we always keep in close contact with social landlords to ensure that they do what they are meant to do and do not overcharge. The Homes and Communities Agency’s latest figures show that arrears have fallen in the same period from last year and rent collection among housing associations is stable at around 98%, so I think that it is safe to assume that the under-occupancy penalty has had little effect on housing association arrears. Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): The bedroom tax surely has a claim to be the most wrong-headed and iniquitous policy introduced by any government in recent memory. The Government’s justification for this cruel tax was that putting it on social housing tenants would incentivise families and individuals to move into smaller homes, but the policy has one fatal flaw: the absence of homes for those families and individuals to move into. Surely the Secretary of State must today concede that the policy has been an abject failure and scrap the tax immediately. Iain Duncan Smith: Apart from the rhetoric, the reality is that the hon. gentleman is wrong. It was his government who started the process in the first place. I remind him that when they introduced the local housing allowance, they refused to allow anybody who accepted that benefit to live in a house that had extra bedrooms, because that would be unfair on those who were in that accommodation. We have restored that fairness. That is the right thing to do, and it saves £500 million a year.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:50:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015