Judges back disabled over ‘bedroom tax’
Angry IDS to appeal over court’s use of human rights to ‘challenge policy’
THE so- called bedroom tax discriminates against some disabled people and victims of domestic violence, the Appeal Court ruled yesterday.
Judges said the removal of the spare room subsidy, as the ‘tax’ is officially known, was unlawful under article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting against discrimination.
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is to lodge an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.
A senior Whitehall source said: ‘The judges used the ECHR to protest about our domestic policy. There is an argument that the judges are overstepping the mark.’
Under changes introduced in 2013, families in social housing claiming housing benefits are assessed for the number of bedrooms they need.
Those deemed by councils to have too much living space receive reduced benefits, with payments cut by 14 per cent if they have a spare bedroom.
The policy has faced a string of legal challenges, including the two at the centre of yesterday’s ruling.
One was brought by a woman identified only as ‘ A’ who said she was concerned about the potential impact on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home has a reinforced ‘panic room’, with alarms linked to a police station, to provide shelter in the event of an attack by her former partner, who has raped, assaulted and threatened to kill her.
The second case was brought by Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren, who has a rare genetic disorder that means he is unable to walk, talk or feed himself and is doubly incontinent.
The couple have a room in their home to accommodate the overnight carer they say he needs and where they also keep equipment to look after him.
Both ‘A’ and the Rutherfords faced benefit cuts, but the DWP had argued that discretionary housing payments were available through local councils to people facing exceptional circumstances. The High Court had previously ruled the policy did not unlawfully discriminate against any of the claimants.
Yesterday Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos ruled in their favour, saying there was discrimination in each case that ‘has not been justified by the Secretary of State’. The DWP said: ‘We fundamentally disagree with the court’s ruling on the ECHR, which directly contradicts the High Court. We have already been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
‘We know there will be people who need extra support.
‘That is why we are giving local authorities over £870million in extra funding over the next five years to help ensure people in difficult situations like these don’t lose out.’
Prime Minister David Cameron also voiced his anger at attempts to undermine the removal of the spare room subsidy, telling MPs yesterday: ‘We always look very carefully at the judgments on these occasions.
‘But of course our fundamental position is that it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we do not subsidise them in the private sector where people are paying housing benefit. That is a basic issue of fairness.’
Mr Rutherford, from Pembrokeshire, said he was ‘absolutely delighted’ with the ruling.
He added: ‘I couldn’t have had a better start to the day. It was so unfair that somebody had to do something to get the law changed.’
Business minister Anna Soubry told BBC Radio 4 that she ‘very much hoped’ the Government would look again at this issue. Whitehall insiders insisted, however, that there would be no change in the Government’s position.
‘It contradicts the High Court’