text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Housing Benefit
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  @MP voted aye against reducing housing benefit for those who have been on Jobseekers Allowance for over a year. 
  
  @MP voted no in support of government plans to reduce housing benefit for those who have been on Jobseekers Allowance for over a year. 
  
  The majority of MPs voted in support of government plans to reduce housing benefit for those who have been on Jobseekers Allowance for over a year. 
  
  
  The text of the rejected motion, introduced by Labour MP Douglas Alexander was[1]:
  
  :That this House
  :''believes'' that, whilst housing benefit is in need of reform, the Government's proposals will mean significant losses for hundreds of thousands of working families and pensioners and risk spending an additional Â£120 million on the cost of providing temporary accommodation; and
  :''calls on'' the Government to bring forward revised proposals for the reform of housing benefit which do not penalise those who have been unable to secure employment within 12 months, and which ensure that any proposals are implemented on a revised timetable which allows councils, tenants and landlords to adjust, allows the impact on rents to be observed and understood, and avoids additional spending on temporary accommodation.
  
  During the debate MP William Bain put the government's plan into his own words:
  :proposals to slash housing benefit payments by 10% for those who find themselves on jobseeker's allowance for 12 months 
  
  The "Red Book" for 2010[3] detailing the budget decisions and their expecting costs/savings shows "Reduce awards to 90% after 12 months for claimants of Jobseekers Allowance" is expected to save Â£100m per year in each of 2013/14 and 2014/15. 
  
  The risk mentioned in the opposition motion of more money than is saved being spent on temporary accommodation is apparently derived from research commissioned by Shelter[4]. This was disputed during the debate by the minister Ian Duncan Smith:
  
  :None the less, the facts are exaggerated. For example, there is the ridiculous fact that we might have to spend an additional Â£120 million to provide temporary accommodation. That is ludicrous.
  
  Given the Shelter report is just a press release, citing research which is not accessible, it appears reasonable to give more weight to the official figures in the Red Book and judge that the Government proposals are expected to reduce Government spending on benefits. 
  
  ==
  
  * [1] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2010-11-09a.147.2 Douglas Alexander MP, House of Commons 9th November 2010]
  * [2] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-09a.147.1 William Bain (Glasgow North East, Labour) House of Commons, 9 November 2010]
  * [3] [http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_188581.pdf The Red Book 2010 - (Budget Decisions and Costings)] See p40 item 33.
  * [4] [http://media.shelter.org.uk/home/press_releases/cuts_to_local_housing_allowance_will_cost_120_million_a_year_due_to_rising_homelessness Cuts to local housing allowance will cost Â£120 million a year due to rising homelessness - Shelter]
  * [5] [http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-09a.147.1#g161.0 Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative),  House of Commons, 9 November 2010]
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  