X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Former housing minister calls for review of benefit rises bill

21 January 2013

12:14 PM

21 January 2013

12:14 PM

The Welfare Benefits Uprating Bill returns to the Commons this afternoon for committee and remaining stages. As I reported last week, rebel backbench Lib Dems, the Labour front bench team and Green MP Caroline Lucas have tabled a number of amendments to the legislation to change the uprating itself, which may provoke heated exchanges on the floor of the House but little more.

But there is one more amendment for discussion which, even if it doesn’t get accepted this afternoon, could well reappear in the House of Lords. It’s from former Housing Minister John Healey (who was in office when Labour made its last minute and rather half-hearted attempt to cut the housing benefits bill) and calls for a review of the relationship between housing benefit and market rents in each local authority area. Healey’s clause says the annual review should analyse how much housing is affordable for those on housing benefits in each local authority area. If there is a significant divergence between local rents and housing benefit levels, then Healey wants the government to reconsider the way it uprates housing benefits.

[Alt-Text]


Now obviously like the rest of his party, Healey opposes the idea of the 1 per cent cap on benefit rises, and there is still plenty of hay to be made on that. But he is working on the basis that this government has granted similar reviews on other welfare legislation. In 2011, Lord Freud set up a review of the housing benefit cuts in the Welfare Reform Bill as a concession to peers scrutinising the legislation. Healey suspects the same could happen in the Lords, but tells me he wants to ‘get in early’ on this:

‘Previously they have held it back as a concession for the Lords. But I want to get in early on this argument because they are using housing benefit to turn the screw on people who have so little flexibility in their budgets. Ministers have not been open about the effects of this and I want to smoke them out.’

P.S. It will be interesting to see what Sarah Teather does today. She rebelled against the Bill at second reading, but has yet to sign the amendments put forward by her Lib Dem colleague Andrew George.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close