Welfare Reform Bill — Clause 10 — Universal Credit Payments In Relation to Disabled Children and Young People — 1 Feb 2012 at 19:00

The majority of MPs rejected a proposal to set the lower rate of the Universal Credit payment in relation to disabled children and young people at a minimum of two-thirds of the higher rate. The aim of the rejected proposal was to prevent the lower rate being set too much lower than the higher rate.

The motion technically voted on was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 1 stated[2]:

  • Page 4, line 34, at end insert “, such additional amount to be paid at either a higher rate, or a lower rate, which shall be no less than two-thirds of the higher rate as may be prescribed”

The above text would have been added to the end of clause 10(2) which read[3]:

  • (1)The calculation of an award of universal credit is to include an amount for each child or qualifying young person for whom a claimant is responsible.
  • (2)Regulations may make provision for the inclusion of an additional amount if such a child or qualifying young person is disabled.

Molly Meacher (Baroness Meacher, of Spitalfields in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Crossbencher) explained why she had proposed the amendment when she moved it in the House of Lords[3]:

  • Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the gap between the higher and normal-rate additions for disabled children is not too great.
  • ...
  • Very briefly, under the new provision for a disability addition and a higher addition, families who have a child who is eligible for the higher addition will receive £1.50 per week more than current claimants do, but families with disabled children who do not meet the stiff criteria for the higher addition will receive £27 per week less. Most families with a disabled child will therefore lose about £1,400 a year.
  • This amendment would peg the normal addition for disabled children at two-thirds the level of the higher disability addition for children.

The figure of £1,400 has also been quoted by Gary Vaux, head of money advice at Hertfordshire Council[5], who has stated:

  • families with a disabled child entering the benefit system after universal credit is introduced will find themselves up to £1,400 a year worse off than current claimants. Over the course of a childhood that could total £22,000 for each disabled child.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

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%
Con276 (+2 tell) 0090.8%
DUP0 7087.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 238 (+2 tell)093.0%
LDem48 0084.2%
PC0 2066.7%
SDLP0 30100.0%
SNP0 3050.0%
Total:324 255090.7%

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

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.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive