Welfare Reform Bill — Clause 11 — Housing costs — Exemptions from Benefit Reductions Due to Excess Bedrooms — 21 Feb 2012 at 16:56
Mark Reckless MP, Rochester and Strood voted not to add proposed exclusions from a reduction in housing benefits due to being deemed to have excess bedrooms.
The majority of MPs voted against adding proposed exclusions from any reduction in housing benefits due to people being deemed to have excess bedrooms.
The majority of MPs who voted supported the following motion:
- That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 3B and 26B.
The effect of the rejected amendment 3B would have been to prevent a loss of benefit for those deemed to have more bedrooms than they require in particular cases. The specified circumstances the amendment would have exempted were: where a council or registered social landlord was unable to provide suitable alternative accommodation and where the property in question had only one excess bedroom and either the claimant was not subject to work related requirements; responsible for a child with illness or disability related benefits; was a war widow or widower or were routinely providing foster care placements.
Amendment 3B referred to the housing related element of universal credit and 26B had the same effect in relation to the Appropriate Maximum Housing Benefit (AMHB). Housing benefit is the current system for benefits payments relating to housing costs, such payments are intended to become the housing related element of universal credit.
Had these amendments been agreed they would have resulted in more money being spent on benefits paid out in relation to housing.
-  Lords Amendments (Described as Lords Amendments in Lieu) dated 17 February 2012.
-  Parliament webpage on the Welfare Reform Bill (which is now the Welfare Reform Act).
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||280 (+1 tell)||2||0||92.5%|
|Lab||0||235 (+2 tell)||0||91.9%|
|LDem||36 (+1 tell)||9||0||80.7%|
|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|
|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|
|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|