MPs Helen Goodman and Richard Harrington debate whether people should have their benefits cut if they have a spare room
Helen Goodman: 'It couldn't be more unfair'
The government says it is introducing the bedroom tax for three reasons – to move people from homes that are "too big" so people in overcrowded accommodation can have more space, to "balance the books" and to cut the cost of welfare.
The basic problem is that there aren't homes for people to move to. In my constituency over 1,000 people will pay the bedroom tax but there are fewer than 100 places they could move to. The government knows this and it shows how cynical it is – its calculation of savings assumes people don't move, but do suffer a fall in income of £10 to £20 per week.
This leaves people with an impossibly small amount to live on. So I have constituents who after electricity, coal, water and non-food essentials are left with just £18 to live on.
This is why I am trying to do just that for a week. Of course a week isn't a lifetime, but even so it's clear you can't have a healthy diet or five fruit and veg a day, let alone indulgences like a drink or chocolate. You can follow my progress on YouTube here. The best way to cut the benefits bill is to get the economy moving and get people back to work. The extra costs of benefits for people out of work is £13bn, well above the bedroom tax saving.
The bedroom tax, which cuts housing benefit from 660,000 of the poorest people, comes in on the same day as the cut in the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p, helping out thousands of millionaires. It really couldn't be more unfair.
• Helen Goodman is the Labour MP for Bishop Auckland
Richard Harrington: 'we need to use housing more efficiently'
A year ago, when asked how to tackle the gap between supply and demand in social housing, my instinctive answer would most likely have been: build more houses. However, in the course of researching current stock for my private members bill on criminalising social housing fraud, I believe that there is a strong argument for using existing stock more efficiently. Looking at under-occupancy is an important part of this.
Currently, one-third of social housing tenants of working age are living in accommodation too big for their needs, while 250,000 families live in overcrowded accommodation. Taxpayers, including social housing tenants, are effectively having to pay for around a million unused bedrooms. Asking those with extra space to choose either a reduction in housing benefit or to move to smaller properties is not only necessary, but fair.
Those living in private rented accommodation in receipt of housing benefit have the amount they receive calculated on the size and needs of the family, not the property they live in. It must be right that those in social housing are treated in the same way.
It has been in the interests of my political opponents to muddy the basic principles of these proposals with rhetoric, ignoring the fact that they too have deemed the £20bn bill for housing benefit too high, and raising scare stories about people with genuine needs being evicted. Many of these will in fact be dealt with via a discretionary fund. For example, foster carers in my constituency who rely on their extra room to care for foster children will be helped.
These measures are not the only solution to a housing shortage and growing demand. However, while there is extra capacity every effort must be made to use it, and to level the playing field between housing benefit recipients in social housing and those struggling in the private rented sector.
• Richard Harrington is Conservative MP for Watford