Welfare Reform Bill — Clause 11 — Housing costs — 1 Feb 2012 at 19:00

Stewart Jackson MP, Peterborough 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[1]

The motion technically being voted on, which was approved, was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2

The rejected Lords amendment 2 stated[2]:

  • 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[3] which deals with the element of Universal Credit intended to relate to Housing costs

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

Party Summary

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.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con274 (+1 tell) 2090.5%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 237 (+2 tell)092.6%
LDem37 (+1 tell) 12087.7%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 30100.0%
SNP0 3050.0%
Total:311 268090.7%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Gordon HendersonSittingbourne and SheppeyCon (front bench)no
Andrew PercyBrigg and GooleCon (front bench)no
Annette BrookeMid Dorset and North PooleLDem (front bench)no
Michael CrockartEdinburgh WestLDem (front bench)no
Andrew GeorgeSt IvesLDem (front bench)no
Mike HancockPortsmouth Southwhilst LDem (front bench)no
John LeechManchester, WithingtonLDem (front bench)no
Greg MulhollandLeeds North WestLDem (front bench)no
Dan RogersonNorth CornwallLDem (front bench)no
Bob RussellColchesterLDem (front bench)no
Adrian SandersTorbayLDemno
Ian SwalesRedcarLDem (front bench)no
David WardBradford EastLDem (front bench)no
Mark WilliamsCeredigionLDem (front bench)no

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive