The so-called ‘bedroom tax’ has undoubtedly caused a lot of pain and disruption to the lives of many people, but it is difficult to argue that the fundamental principle it has introduced is not a correct one.

Penalising people on benefits for having extra rooms in their house which they do not need effectively removed what could be regarded as a ‘spare room subsidy’.

And it is hard to justify single occupancy of two or three-bedroom homes when there are many families in desperate need of houses on the social housing waiting list in Bradford.

It is undoubtedly very difficult for people who have attachments to houses, and may have lived there for many years, and no one wants to see them forced to move. But there are too many families who need more space, and it is difficult to justify why a large family should be crammed into a one or two-bedroom house when someone on their own is rattling around in a bigger property.

The unfortunate fact is that the pressure on social housing is so great, it is necessary to ensure that those living off the State are doing so in the most economically viable way.

Of course, there must be exceptions, and there is no doubt that many mistakes have been made under this new benefits system, and each individual case has to be judged on its own merits.

And while figures for Bradford show that only one in ten tenants affected by the ‘bedroom tax’ have downsized, the reduction in benefits paid to those who haven’t has resulted in huge savings of £33m nationally, according to the Department of Work and Pensions.

On a purely dispassionate basis, it is difficult to argue with such a saving in times of severe austerity.