text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill -  Clause 1 - Victims of Domestic Abuse - Benefit Reduction in Respect of Excess Bedrooms
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  @ MP voted aye to give local councils the freedom to decide if benefits to cover housing costs should be reduced in respect of excess bedrooms in cases of new local council secure tenancies offered to victims of domestic abuse. 
  
  @ MP voted no not to give local councils the freedom to decide if benefits to cover housing costs should be reduced in respect of excess bedrooms in cases of new local council secure tenancies offered to victims of domestic abuse. 
  
  The majority of MPs voted not to give local councils the freedom to decide if benefits to cover housing costs should be reduced in respect of excess bedrooms in cases of new local council secure tenancies offered to victims of domestic abuse. 
  
  MPs were considering the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill[1].
  
  The amendment rejected in this vote was:
  
  :Amendment 2, page 1, line 25, at end insertâ
  
  :â(2BA) A local housing authority which grants an old-style secure tenancy under subsection (2A) or (2B) has discretion to decide whether or not the maximum rent for the old-style secure tenancy should be determined according to [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111525784/regulation/5 regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/213) as amended by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/ 3040)].â
  
  Had it not been rejected this amendment would have resulted in the additional subsection being added to Clause 1 of the Bill[2]. The Bill sought to amend Section 81B of the Housing Act 1985, [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/22/schedule/7/paragraph/4 Section 81B was added via Schedule 7, Paragraph 4 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016]. Section 81A generally abolished new permanent secure tenancies, Section 81B set out circumstances in which old-style secure tenancies may be granted. 
  
  Before the amendment the Bill sought to ensure[3]:
  
  : lifetime tenants of social homes who are victims of domestic abuse are granted a further lifetime tenancy where a) they either need to leave or have left their home to escape domestic abuse and are being re-housed by a local authority, or (b) where they are a joint tenant and wish to remain a tenant of their social home after the perpetrator has left or been removed and the local authority decides to grant them a further sole tenancy in their current home.
  
  Regulation B13, referred to in the rejected amendment, provides for benefits relating to housing to be reduced in respect of bedrooms deemed in excess of the tenant's requirements. 
  
  During the debate prior to the vote the intent of the amendment was explained[4]:
  
  :Amendment 2 would ensure that victims of domestic abuse do not have to pay extra charges as a result of the bedroom tax if they are provided with a secure tenancy that incorporates a spare room.
  
  ==
  * [1] [https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/securetenanciesvictimsofdomesticabuse.html Parliament's webpage on the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill]
  * [2] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0183/cbill_2017-20190183_en_2.htm#l1g1 Clause 1 of the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill as at the time of the vote]
  * [3] [https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0183/en/18183en02.htm Explanatory notes to the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill. Overview section.]
  * [4] [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-05-08b.569.2#g573.1 Melanie Onn MP, (Great Grimsby, Labour), House of Commons, Official Record, 8 May 2018]
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  