Will ‘independent’ study whitewash the Bedroom Tax?

Doesn't he look like a puppet? In fact the correct term is 'marionette' - for a puppet on strings, worked from above. But who's pulling Nick Clegg's strings this time?

Doesn’t he look like a puppet? In fact the correct term is ‘marionette’ – for a puppet on strings, worked from above. But who’s pulling Nick Clegg’s strings this time?

The Government is running an independent study into the impact of the Bedroom Tax, in order to find out if it is really possible for social housing tenants to move into smaller accommodation to escape its effects. The result should more likely be feared than welcomed.

Nick Clegg announced that the study was taking place in response to a Parliamentary question from Harriet Harman – but was immediately undermined by the Department for Work and Pensions. A government spokesman said the DWP routinely commissions research on new policies and an independent consortium was already carrying out evaluation work.

Clegg had to say he was taking action after his own party voted to change its policy on the Tax – the Liberal Democrats now oppose it – but this is not cause for celebration.

Who will carry out this independent study? We are told it is an “independent consortium” but what does that mean? What will be their terms of reference? What questions will they be asking and will they be the questions that need to be asked?

Observers should be raising serious doubts about all of these because this is not a government with a good track record on evidence-led policy.

We all know what this is about – the government’s hugely flawed scheme to claw back Housing Benefit cash from social housing tenants, taking 14 per cent of payments from those with one spare bedroom, and a quarter of the benefit from anyone with two. The Discretionary Housing Payment scheme for local councils was boosted to £60 million in anticipation of extra demand from struggling tenants.

It is true that evidence about the policy is conflicting. Lord Freud, introducing it in the House of Lords, apparently refused to listen to arguments that there were too few single-bedroom properties into which under-occupiers could downsize. Now he is blaming local authorities for the shortage.

The government said the policy would save £480 million, but the increased cost of DHPs must be subtracted from that, and also the costs of people who do manage to downsize. This could range from just four per cent of the 660,000 affected households to 20 per cent, depending on who you believe – a recent study by the University of York suggested that 20 per cent of households intended to move (which isn’t quite the same as actually doing it), but this was based on evidence from just four housing associations.

It seems unlikely that one-fifth of everyone affected nationally is moving to a different property – but even if they were, this would not create a saving for the government because it would have to pay out, not only increased Housing Benefit for those who have moved into smaller but more expensive private rented housing, but also Housing Benefit for people moving into the now-vacant larger social housing.

And then there are the people who cannot downsize but cannot afford the rent if their Housing Benefit is reduced. Recent reports had 50,000 households facing eviction – around one-thirteenth of the total number affected.

If they become homeless, local councils will have to find temporary accommodation for them – and this is paradoxically much more expensive than putting them in social housing, because they have to go into bed-and-breakfast rooms. Homelessness was already on the increase before the Bedroom Tax was introduced, rising from 44,160 households in 2011-12 to 53,540 in 2012-13.

Not only that, but there has been a sharp increase in complaints about this accommodation, according to the Local Government Ombudsman.

Finally, let us not forget that at least one suicide has been attributed to the Bedroom Tax – that of Stephanie Bottrill.

So definitive research is certainly desirable. There’s just one problem: The Coalition Government is very good at commissioning ‘independent’ reports that say exactly what ministers want them to.

Look at the report on culling badgers to get rid of bovine tuberculosis. A seven-year study during New Labour’s period in office concluded that this would be useless, and in fact could worsen the situation. The Coalition came in and a new study appeared advocating a cull.

With no knowledge of who is carrying out the report it is hard to predict whether its findings will be accurate – or just what the government ordered.


  1. thepositivevoice October 16, 2013 at 11:13 am - Reply

    Reblogged this on thepositivevoice.

  2. elentari98 October 16, 2013 at 12:22 pm - Reply

    David Hawkins at http://www.abeldanger.com (or org) has some interesting things to say about Mr. Clegg and his wife, who is apparently Spanish. He and others Field McConnell have some amazing information about many people, especially members of the Bullingdon Club.

  3. Jim Caddis October 16, 2013 at 12:23 pm - Reply

    Mr Clegg confirmed that the Department for Work and Pensions has commissioned a consortium led by Ipsos Mori to undertake an independent review of the spare room subsidy. That tells you all you need to know, divide and rule but keep the tax at all costs to save face.

  4. jray October 16, 2013 at 12:26 pm - Reply

    And no doubt somebody will bank a shed load of Taxpayer money with another report, which is obvious to a 10 year old….Pass the Bolly,old Boy,I am parched!

  5. AM-FM October 16, 2013 at 12:57 pm - Reply

    “The Government is running an independent study”

    Around here the bedroom tax seems to be working in reverse, I only have to look out of the window to see 2 empty 3-bedroom houses, and 1 2-bedroom. Hope they don’t end up getting rented to one of Dave’s problem families!
    A 2-bedroom ‘better’ house is £8 a week less rent than a ‘worse’ 1-bed flat.
    Even if you stay within the same bedroom count, you can move to gain a dining room and save £10 in rent, a M8 has just become a neighbour! Go figure.

  6. Noctilu Centish (@Centish) October 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm - Reply

    Having looked through DWP Spends for August 2013 I see that the DWP are paying the following for Social Research. These may be some or all of the consortium mentioned.


  7. Les Scaife October 16, 2013 at 3:20 pm - Reply

    A case in point was the so called “consultation” on cessation of the ILF fund. A huge majority of users voted in favour of the status quo, yet this government went against that vote and decided to hand that money over to local authorities without ring fencing it. On asking my own local authority if the level of care will be maintained after the ILF finishes, I was told “we cannot guarantee that”.
    It’s all part of the dirty tricks department that is called politics.

  8. Chris Griffiths October 16, 2013 at 5:45 pm - Reply

    WHAT!!!!!??????????….you mean they passed a law without even knowing the consequences upon the ‘common people’?….how dare they pick on social housing tenants who cannot afford to buy!….how dare they make disabled homeless!….OMG….as if it was ever going to save Government money anyway!…anyone with an ounce of common sense would know that is not the case…why don’t they pick on the rich and the city bankers that took from us!…and the massive unbelievable salaries of all the ‘fat cats’ in this country…the boss of SSE basic salary £755,000!!!!…..whilst pensioners and disabled cannot afford to put heating on….or choose between eating and heating…..why do they think we have food banks?…they just don’t get it do they!?

  9. jeffrey davies October 16, 2013 at 6:19 pm - Reply

    Ipsos Mori to undertake an independent review of bedroom tax ah now they calling it by its real name a tax but wait for it either takesolong to come its to late or it will show that people don’t want to move too but it will be a pack of tory lies

  10. Mike Sivier October 16, 2013 at 10:03 pm - Reply

    The elephant in the room is that the Bedroom Tax will only save the government money if a particular condition is met. I skirted around it a bit (by accident, as it happens – I thought I’d made the point already previously). Here’s DPAC making it perfectly clear, and I’m indebted to Anita Bellows for this:

  11. […] Doesn’t he look like a puppet? In fact the correct term is ‘marionette’ – for a puppet on strings, worked from above. But who’s pulling Nick Clegg’s strings this time?  […]

  12. […] The Government is running an independent study into the impact of the Bedroom Tax, in order to find out if it is really possible for social housing tenants to move into smaller accommodation to esc…  […]

Leave A Comment