text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Opposition Day - Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  @ MP voted aye against a housing benefit under-occupancy penalty. 
  @ MP voted no in favour of a housing benefit under-occupancy penalty. 
  
  The majority of MPs voted in favour of a housing benefit under-occupancy penalty. 
  
  MPs were voting on a motion which called on the Government to abandon its proposed housing benefit under-occupancy penalty. This rejected motion was proposed by Eilidh Whiteford MP (Banff and Buchan, Scottish National Party). It stated:
  
  :That this House 
  :''deplores and opposes'' the Governmentâs introduction of the housing benefit under-occupancy penalty; 
  :''believes'' it to be unjust and unworkable; 
  :''notes'' growing public anger at its introduction; 
  :''believes'' that the Government is showing a reckless lack of care and attention to the consequences of its introduction for low-income households affected by disability; 
  :''further believes'' that it will adversely affect, amongst others, families of service personnel, foster families and those struggling with the effects of family breakdown; 
  :''notes'' that some parts of the UK will be disproportionately hit because of the mismatch between the available social housing stock and the needs of tenants; 
  :''further notes'' that according to the Department for Work and Pensionsâ Equality Impact Assessment, 63 per cent of the 660,000 claimants affected by the under-occupancy penalty or their partners are disabled; believes that the measure unfairly penalises tenants in rural and inner-city areas; 
  :''further believes'' the under-occupancy penalty will fail to meet its stated objectives; and 
  :''calls'' on the Government to abandon this policy immediately.
  
  An assessment of the impact of[1] introducing size criteria for working-age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector states: "The exchequer and taxpayers benefit as a result of benefit reductions to individuals"; this is balanced by potential higher costs to local authorities, and costs to individual claimants.  
  
  ==
  
  * [1] [http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-022AD.pdf Impact Assessment of introducing size criteria for working-age Housing Benefit claimants living in the social rented sector]
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  