Well, preferably a bungalow, but mostly we just do flats, but they can be smart apartments. Yes, you could move.
There are some 240,000 families who are overcrowded. We have far more elderly people who are underoccupying than that. We could give incentives to older people, the incentive being the really nice apartment elsewhere. It gives you two-for-one, because you release your family home. This is not the approach being taken in this legislation.
If we are going to have to reconcile ourselves to there being this penalty, then the other amendments in this group come into play, which are about exemptions, exceptions and letting some people off. I hope it does not come to this, but if it does, a series of exemptions is outlined in the amendments that follow.
Amendments 38 and 79 would remove the underoccupation penalty for the 100,000 properties that have been specially adapted to meet the needs of a disabled tenant—we have heard a little about that already. It would be daft to move a household with a disabled family member to smaller premises if the costs of fitting out the new home—for example, with a level-access shower or removal of steps—far exceeded the savings from cutting the housing benefit and left wasted adaptations behind because no other household needed the particular adaptations made to the previous home.
Similarly, Amendments 39 and 80 would exempt the 200,000 households in receipt of disability living allowance, or the new personal independence payment, in the same way that DLA recipients have been excluded from the proposed total housing benefit cap. Some extra space for those with disabilities can even save money when that allows a carer to move in during a difficult period for the disabled person, saving the cost of hospital or residential care. Amendments 40 and 81, which are supported by the Fostering Network and Barnardo’s, as well as the housing charities, which are behind all the amendments, would exempt properties where families are providing foster care placements.
I am sure that it is simply a fault of the drafting, but, at present, the Bill would not count foster children as part of the household. Therefore, any rooms they occupy would be classified as unoccupied. That is clearly nonsense, and I am sure that the Minister will explain how that will be put right in future.
Welfare Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Best
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 18 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Welfare Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c81-2GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:08:18 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_774468
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_774468
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_774468