Finance Bill — Clause 8 — Study Of Impact of Child Benefit Proposals on Single Earner Families — 19 Apr 2012 at 18:00

The majority of MPs voted not to require a study into ways of reducing the impact on families with only one earner of proposals to recover child benefit from those earning over £50,000.

The text of the amendment to clause 8 of the Finance Bill 2012[1], which introduces provisions intended to recover child benefit from those earning over £50,000, was as follows:

  • (2) Schedule 1 will not come into effect until a study has been carried out into ways of mitigating the impact of the Schedule on families with only one earner, compared with families with two earners, and placed in the Library of the House of Commons.’[2]

The proposal to require the study was made by Cathy Jamieson MP (Labour, Kilmarnock & Loudoun). Concerns raised during debate by other MPs appeared to focus fact the proposed law does not consider the combined total income of couples. Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative) commented on this point saying:

  • two people on £50,000 a year with children will not have to pay the high income child benefit charge, whereas a family with children with one person earning over £60,000 will have to pay it.

Mr Chope appeared to consider this to be unfair; the rejected proposal for the study appears to have been intended to look into this kind of issue.

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 (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con253 (+1 tell) 6085.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 218 (+2 tell)085.6%
LDem40 (+1 tell) 0071.9%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 60100.0%
Total:293 234083.8%

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

Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)aye
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)aye
Edward LeighGainsboroughCon (front bench)aye
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)aye
Mark RecklessRochester and StroodCon (front bench)aye

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