Finance Bill 2012 — Schedule 1 — Income Threshold for Recovery of Child Benefit — 19 Apr 2012 at 18:00

The majority of MPs voted against a proposal from Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) to recover child benefit from those couples with a total income of over £100,000, rather than from couples in which either individual has an income of over £50,000[1].

A tax on those with an income over £50,000 designed to recover child benefit paid to such individuals was present in the bill under discussion[2]. The tax would only apply to the higher earning individual in a couple.

During the debate Mr Chope suggested the original proposal was unfair saying[3]:

  • 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.

The text of Mr Chope's rejected amendment was:

  • in schedule 1, at end insert—
  • (5) A person (P) is not liable to a high income child benefit charge if the total adjusted net income for the year of that person and any partner does not exceed £100,000’.

Minister David Gauke, The Exchequer Secretary, explained the Government's position, which was reflected in the bill as introduced, was based on ease of administration, saying[4]:

  • The focus on doing this through the tax system and on having one taxpayer above a certain threshold enables us to avoid the position whereby we would have to put every child benefit claimant through the tax credit system and apply a means-tested system to 8 million different cases, creating a substantially greater administrative struggle for both Government and many individuals. That is why we have taken that particular point.

A vote for Mr Chope's amendment is a vote in favour of greater recognition of couples in the tax and benefits system.

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
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con244 (+1 tell) 10 (+2 tell)084.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 220085.6%
LDem39 (+1 tell) 0070.2%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP0 1033.3%
SNP0 60100.0%
Total:283 240083.1%

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

Douglas CarswellClactonConaye
Christopher ChopeChristchurchCon (front bench)aye
Philip DaviesShipleyCon (front bench)aye
Nadine DorriesMid BedfordshireCon (front bench)aye
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)tellaye
Stewart JacksonPeterboroughCon (front bench)aye
Edward LeighGainsboroughCon (front bench)aye
Anne MainSt AlbansCon (front bench)aye
David NuttallBury NorthCon (front bench)aye
Mark PritchardThe WrekinCon (front bench)aye
Mark RecklessRochester and StroodCon (front bench)tellaye
Laurence RobertsonTewkesburyCon (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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive