Amendments set down on Benefits Cap
by Gareth Morgan on January 10, 2012
The amendments tabled for the next day of the report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, so far, were published in the ‘Third Marshalled List of Amendments to be moved on Report as at 9 January 2012’.
It’s interesting, in the light of speculation about the government’s willingness to soften the cap, to see what has been listed.
Clause 94
BARONESS DONAGHY 58C
Page 63, line 22, at end insert “except for industrial injuries benefit awards”
THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON AND LEEDS 59
Page 63, line 25, after “benefits” insert “with the exclusion of child benefit”
LORD BEST 60
Page 64, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section shall provide that the benefit cap shall not be applied for the first 26 weeks from the date on which the claimant’s total entitlement to welfare benefits exceeds the relevant amount.”
BARONESS HOLLINS 60A*
Page 64, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section must not impose a benefit cap to the welfare benefits of claimants with entitlement to carer’s allowance or additional amounts within universal credit for claimants with regular and substantial caring responsibilities.”
LORD BEST 61
Page 64, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section must provide for an exemption from the application of the benefit cap for individuals or couples owed a duty to be provided with interim or temporary accommodation under section 188, 190, 193 or 200 of the Housing Act 1996.”
These amendments match the topics that emerging stories list as being those that the government is negotiating on.
Comments
It is simply rioliucdus to think this could work and I am glad it has been defeated. In areas of high rents, a claimants a3500 limit would be eaten up in a hearbeat with rent and council tax. There would be nothing left to provide food and heating. People will die. I am sick to death of the arguments that a326,000 a year is more than most people have to live on who work. It is always forgotten that many claimants these days have been put in the position through the recessession. They may have paid into the system for many years and when they need help are treated like bums. If losing your job is not bad enough and the resulting poverty, to suggest that a claimant should uproot their lives and family to live in a cheaper rental area is cruel. But of course, the government and hardliners are not interested in the quality of life of these indivuals who’s heart and soul may be bound up in their homes, their family and friend connections, their sense of community, their childrens schools etc. I fear for a two tier system of the affluent living cosilty with the poor being consigned to ghettos. It is recognised that a community rich in all walks of life is more beneficial, and let’s face it people from poorer backgrounds do not make the rules on the cost of rent, but can be determined by supply and demand and the rich people’s desire to live in certain areas which push prices up. The poor rarely have a say in it.