Welfare Reform Bill — Clause 11 — Housing costs — 1 Feb 2012 at 19:00
Anna Soubry MP, Broxtowe voted not to require the housing cost element of universal credit be sufficient to cover the actual cost of housing for social tenants in cases where no offer of alternative accommodation has been made and the household has no more than one spare bedroom.
The majority of MPs voted not to require the housing cost element of universal credit be sufficient to cover the actual cost of housing for social tenants where no offer of alternative accommodation has been made and the household has no more than one spare bedroom.
MPs were considering the Welfare Reform Bill
The motion technically being voted on, which was approved, was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2
The rejected Lords amendment 2 stated:
- Page 5, line 2, after “credit” insert “, subject to subsection (3A),”
subsection 3A was proposed be added by a further amendment which was later also rejected it read:
- In relation to a dwelling of which the landlord is a local housing authority or a registered provider of social housing, and no suitable alternative accommodation (as defined in regulations to be made under this section, and provided by any such provider) is available, regulations under this section shall not permit the housing cost element of the universal credit to be less than the actual amount of the liability in a case where a household has no more than one spare bedroom.”
The rejected amendment would have had an effect on Clause 11 of the Welfare Reform Bill which deals with the element of Universal Credit intended to relate to Housing costs
-  Welfare Reform Bill page on the Parliament website (now the Welfare Reform Act 2012)
-  Lords Amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill - 1 February 2012
-  Clause 11 of the Welfare Reform Bill as at 26 January 2012 which the proposed amendment would have changed
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||274 (+1 tell)||2||0||90.5%|
|Lab||0||237 (+2 tell)||0||92.6%|
|LDem||37 (+1 tell)||12||0||87.7%|
|Gordon Henderson||Sittingbourne and Sheppey||Con (front bench)||no|
|Andrew Percy||Brigg and Goole||Con (front bench)||no|
|Annette Brooke||Mid Dorset and North Poole||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Michael Crockart||Edinburgh West||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Andrew George||St Ives||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Mike Hancock||Portsmouth South||whilst LDem (front bench)||no|
|John Leech||Manchester, Withington||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Greg Mulholland||Leeds North West||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Dan Rogerson||North Cornwall||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Bob Russell||Colchester||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Adrian Sanders||Torbay||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Ian Swales||Redcar||LDem (front bench)||no|
|David Ward||Bradford East||LDem (front bench)||no|
|Mark Williams||Ceredigion||LDem (front bench)||no|