THE TORIES’ loathed "bedroom tax" goes before the UK’s top court today on the grounds that it unjustifiably discriminates against disabled people.
It is hoped the three-day hearing before seven judges at the Supreme Court will bring an end to the hardship endured by disabled people since the spare room subsidy for Housing Benefit was removed in 2013.
The hearing comes as the Scottish Government is poised to announce how its new powers over social security are to be used.
Social Justice Secretary Alex Neil said yesterday: “We are committed to using new powers over social security to abolish the hated bedroom tax.
“We will set out our approach to new social security powers this week, based on the principles of dignity and respect, which will help to remove the stigma attached to accessing benefits. We want to show that social security can be fairer, tackle inequalities, and protect and support the most vulnerable in our society.”
Under the policy, those in the social rented sector who are judged to have one or more spare bedrooms have had their Housing Benefit reduced by 25 per cent. This is the case even when their disability means they cannot move to smaller accommodation or they need the extra space.
Lawyer Karen Ashton said the Supreme Court hearing was about fairness. “It is about disabled people being entitled to be paid sufficient Housing Benefit for the size and type of accommodation they need because of their disabilities, and not being penalised because they are disabled," she said. "The government’s own evaluation of the scheme found 57 per cent of those affected reported that they had cut back on essentials such as food and heating costs.”
She added: “The UK is the first country to be investigated by the UN Committee on the ground there is reliable evidence of grave and systematic violations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
“It is believed that the ‘bedroom tax’ is one of the policies that will be considered, but we hope that, by the time the committee reports on its investigation, it will be of historical interest only because the Supreme Court will have found the policy to be unjustifiable.”
Before the hearing, which is headed by Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, Labour’s Margaret Beckett criticised George Osborne for refusing to acknowledge the hardship it had created.
“The Secretary of State, who is the man behind this policy, is a very obstinate man who can’t bear to be told he has made a decision which is wrong and wants to charge ahead at any cost to anyone, including the British taxpayer,” she said.
A number of appeals against the policy are being heard this week.
One set of cases includes Susan and Paul Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson in a specially adapted three-bedroom bungalow. In their case, the government is appealing against an Appeal Court ruling that the government had failed to justify the discrimination against them.
Beckett said: “This is a quite elderly couple who are looking after their grandson who has profound disabilities and needs 24 hours a day, seven day a week care. They are providing that care and the spare room is needed for some of the equipment they have to use or for someone to relieve them overnight from time to time. They are saving the British taxpayer an absolute fortune.
“If they were not looking after that child ... he would have to be cared for at the expense of the state and it would cost a thousand times what it cost to let them keep their spare room.”
The second set of cases is being brought because the Appeal Court ruled that the Secretary of State had justified the discrimination.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here