Welfare Reform and Work Bill — Removal of Limited Capability for Work Component from Universal Credit — Impact Assessment and Parliamentary Approval of Implementation — 2 Mar 2016 at 19:04

The majority of MPs voted against making the removal of the limited capability for work element of universal credit conditional on an impact assessment and against requiring Parliament to approve details of implementing the change.

MPs were considering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

  • That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 9B and 9C.

Lords' amendment 9B stated[2]:

  • Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
  • “(2) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report giving his or her estimate of the impact of the provision in this section on the—
  • (a) physical and mental health,
  • (b) financial situation, and
  • (c) ability to return to work, of persons who would otherwise be entitled to start claiming the limited capability for work element of universal credit.
  • (3) Regulations bringing this section into force shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Had it not been rejected this amendment would have added the above text to Clause 14 of the Bill titled Universal credit: work-related requirements[3] The clause provided for the removal of section 12(2) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 which provided for the "limited capability for work" and "regular and substantial caring responsibilities for a severely disabled person" elements of Universal Credit. The component is paid at a rate of £29.05 per week.[4] Together with the removal of the "work-related activity component" from the Employment and Support Allowance the changes are expected to reduce Government spending by £640m per year in 2020/21.[4]

Lords amendment 9C stated[2]:

  • Page 28, line 2, at end insert “and subject to section 14(2) and (3)”

This would have impacted Clause 31 of the Bill[5], adding the text to subsection (6) which stated:

  • The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.

The rejected addition would have enabled amendment 9B to take effect.

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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con309 (+2 tell) 3095.2%
DUP0 2025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 2066.7%
Lab0 204 (+2 tell)089.2%
LDem0 6075.0%
PC0 1033.3%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 52096.3%
UUP0 20100.0%
Total:309 275091.4%

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

Heidi AllenSouth CambridgeshireCon (front bench)no
Jason McCartneyColne ValleyConno
Stephen McPartlandStevenageConno

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