Finance (No.2) Bill — New Clause 2 — Independent taxation and family benefits — 8 Nov 2010 at 17:30

The majority of MPs rejected a proposal to review the impact of new child benefit eligibility rules on the principle of taxing people independently even if they are married.

The rejected proposal was made while MPs were debating the second Finance Bill of the Parliament, titled the "Finance (No.2) Bill"[1][2].

Labour MP Chris Leslie introduced a new Clause 2 to be added to the bill saying[3]:

  • The Treasury shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission and publish an independent review of the implications of the operation of section 32 of the Finance Act 1988 (Married couples-abolition of aggregation of income) on methods of determining eligibility for family benefits including child benefit.

Mr Leslie explained the purpose of the clause during the debate[3], telling MPs:

  • New clause 2 would force the Treasury to come clean on its plans to withdraw child benefit from families with higher-rate taxpayers from January 2013, which will take £2.5 billion a year from those families from 2014-15 onwards.

During the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor, announced[4]

  • I have taken the difficult decision to remove child benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer.

During the debate on this clause Labour MP Chris Evans was one of those highlighting a key issue arising due to independent taxation saying[5]:

  • I am deeply concerned by proposals that will see a lone parent or single-earner couple earning just above the higher rate threshold lose their child benefit while a dual-earner couple both earning just under the threshold would continue to receive it.

While introducing his new clause Christopher Leslie MP drew attention[3] to the fact that the way Child Benefit eligibility was to be determined was eroding the principle of independence and privacy in relation to tax between married people.

Technically the vote was on if the rejected new clause ought to have been read a second time, ie. if it should have continued on the path to becoming law.

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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con254 (+2 tell) 0083.7%
DUP0 1012.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 208 (+2 tell)081.7%
LDem48 0084.2%
PC0 30100.0%
SNP0 5083.3%
Total:302 218082.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by vote

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

no rebellions

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