§ 31G.—(1) The Secretary of State may supply to charging authorities and levying authorities such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of any of his functions under the 135 benefit Acts as they may require in connection with any of their functions relating to community charge benefits.
§ (2) Charging authorities and levying authorities shall supply to the Secretary of State such information of a prescribed description obtained by reason of the exercise of their functions relating to community charge benefits as he may require in connection with any of his functions under the benefit Acts.
§ (3) It shall also be the duty of each charging authority and of each levying authority to supply the Secretary of State, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time—
- (a) with such information as he may require concerning its performance of any of its functions relating to community charge benefits; and
- (b) with such information as he may require to enable him to prepare estimates of likely future amounts of community charge benefit subsidy.
§ (4) Each charging authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit as regards a personal or collective community charge of the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.
§ (5) Each levying authority shall take such steps as appear to it appropriate for the purpose of securing that any person who may be entitled to a community charge benefit in respect of a personal community charge payable to the authority becomes aware that he may be entitled to it.
§ (6) Each charging authority and each levying authority shall make copies of the community charge benefit scheme, with any modifications adopted by it under section 31B above, available for public inspection at its principal office at all reasonable hours without payment."
§
7. In section 51 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit) in subsection (2) after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted—
(ee) community charge benefits;".
§ 8.—(1) Section 56 (legal proceedings) shall be amended as follows.
§ (2) In subsection (2)(a) and (b) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted "or community charge benefits".
§ (3) In subsection (4) for "concerning" there shall be substituted "which relates to housing benefit and concerns".
§
(4) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
(4A) In subsections (2) and (3) above "the appropriate authority" means, in relation to an offence relating to community charge benefits, such authority as is prescribed in relation to the offence.
§ (5) In subsection (5) for "(4)" there shall be substituted "(4A)".
§ 9. In subsection 61 (consultations on subordinate legislation) after paragraph (b) of subsection (7) there shall be inserted—
- "(c) regulations relating to community charge benefits (other than regulations of which the effect is to increase any amount specified in regulations previously made);
- (d) an order under section 31B(9) or 31F above,".
§ 10. In section 63 (annual up-rating of benefits) in subsection (1)(i) after "22(1)" there shall be inserted "or (4A)".
§ 11.—(1) Section 83 (orders and regulations) shall be amended as follows.
§ (2) In subsection (2) after "housing benefit" there shall be inserted " or community charge benefits".
§ (3) In subsection (3) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
- "(cc) regulations under Part II of this Act which relate to community charge benefits and are made before 1 April 1990;
- (ccc) orders under section 31F(2) or (5) above which are made before 1 April 1990;
§ (4) In subsection (5) after "30" there shall be inserted ",31F". 12. In section 85 (financial provision) in subsection (1)(a) after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted—
136§ "(vi) community charge benefit subsidy;".'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
§ Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
§ Amendment made: No 42, in title, line 6, after 'about', insert 'the capital expenditure and'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 9.1 pm
§ Mr. RidleyI beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
Our debates have been long, but conducted with good nature and courtesy. I thank the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for that. The details of the Bill have stood up to examination remarkably well, although there are a number of improvements that we have undertaken to make. The principle of the Bill has been challenged repeatedly, but no superior alternative has been found.
The policies of the Opposition parties—local income tax for the remnants of the alliance and their ex-friends, and local income tax plus capital value rates for the Labour party—have been shown to be fatally flawed and unworkable, so much so that both Opposition parties have tried to avoid discussing them, let alone pressing them, throughout our entire debates. That has made their opposition "vacuous"—in the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He said:
Simply to oppose is a sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise".I sympathise with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. He started the debates "naked", and is now accused by his deputy leader of ending them "vacuous". He has done a good job on the bill and he deserves better than that, especially from his own party.
§ Mr. Simon Hughesrose——
§ Mr. RidleyI shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak.
The debate came to life last Monday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) advanced a possible solution that, he argued, combined the advantages of a flat rate charge with his desire for the better off to contribute more. At least that was a positive alternative—unlike anything offered by the Labour party. In fact, his scheme combined the disadvantages of a step system with near unworkability without meeting the egalitarian instincts of the Labour party, although it supported him against its better judgment, as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, in a cyncial attempt to stop the Bill.
The fact is that all the many alternatives we have considered—banded community charges, local income tax, capital value rates, and my hon. Friend's proposal for a three-band community charge—have been shown to have fatal flaws, because it is in principle thoroughly undesirable, and costly and complicated in practice, to have a progressive element in the raising of revenue locally. That is why we suggest that only a quarter of local revenue should be raised locally. That enables us to overcome the practical problems of a progressive local system, by providing for half of local spending through the national tax system, which is progressive.
Some of my hon. Friends would go further, and provide more from the Exchequer, to reduce the size of the 137 community charge bill. The Bill enables us to take that decision when we come to it, which is not now. I should point out that the great advantage of this system is that, whatever level of Exchequer grant is chosen, the principle of accountability is still preserved, because extra spending above assessed need will always be paid by the community charge payer and be comparable between different authorities. So, for example, if the grant was set so that at last year's spending the community charge for spending at GRE was, say, £100 rather than £178, there would still be the same disparities between London and Rochester, because of the profligacy of the one and the prudence of the other, though the community charge in both cases would be lower. That is not the case with rates, where we have attempted in the past to bring home the costs of local government spending to voters by reducing the grant total and altering the mechanisms by which it is paid. That is an attempt which has not been entirely successful, because of' the lack of accountability inherent in the rate system.
That reinforces the point that the progressive contribution to local spending must come from national taxation. I think that we have the split between local and national contributions about right. However, we can judge every year the proportion which we think is right to levy from progressive taxation when we set the level of Exchequer grant.
We have related our proposals to ability to pay. The new improved rebate system gives strong protection to the less well off. It has been shown to leave no one with an unfair burden, while still asking virtually everyone to make at least a small contribution to their council's spending, in the interest of accountability.
The new system of local government finance will usher in a new era—a new attitude in local government. The relationship between councils and their electors will change to one where every council has to concentrate on local rather than national issues, on providing value for money in the services they provide and on serving their customers as their first priority. That will be a great improvement for many authorities controlled by Opposition parties—high time, too. I believe that in time the community charge will come to be seen as a watershed in terms of the strengthening of local democracy.
I make no judgment about what another place may or may not do in relation to the Bill. However, I do believe that I am entitled to observe that the proposal has been endorsed at a general election, and I quote the relevant passage in our 1987 manifesto:
We will legislate in the first Session of the new Parliament to abolish the unfair domestic rating system and replace rates with a fairer Community-Charge.This will be a fixed rate charge for local services paid by those over the age of 18, except for the mentally ill and elderly people living in homes and hospitals. The less-well-off and students will not have to pay the full charge—but everyone will be aware of the costs as well as the benefits of the local services. This should encourage people to take a greater interest in the policies of their local council and getting value for money.That is the end of the quotation from our manifesto, which spelt out in great detail what we propose to do.
§ Mr. Wilsonrose——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. MarlowWill my right hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. RidleyI will not give way, because I want to give a lot of hon. Gentlemen an opportunity to speak. I will refrain from giving way.
The policy has since been endorsed in a Second Reading debate in the House lasting two days, a Committee stage of 147 hours, and a Report stage of five days. That included a memorable debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East when I believe the House, with a perfectly respectable majority, took a clear decision to align the system of local government finance with the reality of a society where prosperity is even more widely spread and in which most people can afford a reasonable, flat rate charge and, collectively, they can afford generous help for the less well off. I am sure their Lordships will bear all these points in mind when they come to discuss the Bill.
I thank my Minister of State, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my officials and all our many supporters for the immense efforts they have all made to get us to this historic point. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ 9.9 pm
§ Dr. CunninghamI join the Secretary of State in expressing thanks for the continued courtesy with which these contemptuous, not to say outrageous, matters have been discussed. He could have added that they had been discussed with considerable humour, although not always intentionally, as I gather from some of the things that he has said.
This must be the worst Bill to be introduced by any Government in this country this century. Its provisions are deeply and manifestly unfair. We remain fundamentally and vehemently opposed to it. After four months of discussion and debate, the proposals are worse than at the outset. Fundamental questions remain unanswered, for example, the real level of the tax burden that is to be imposed. We do not know how the rebate scheme will operate or who will benefit. The Government cannot explain how their new business tax will be introduced. We do not know how the new local authority grants system will operate in practice.
However, we do know that the British people now bitterly oppose the whole idea. We know that all British local government associations remain implacably opposed to the idea of the poll tax. We know that the Government's policy on the poll tax has been widely condemned in the British press. A leader in The Times on 20 April was highly critical. In a leader on 21 April, The Daily Telegraph called upon the Government, "to think again."
In a leading article on 20 April, The Independent stated that the Prime Minister should,
pluck up courage and admit that when she and her colleagues committed themselves to the poll tax, they made a mistake.The Guardian described the poll tax as "a stricken flagship".—[Interruption.] Apparently, all that counts for nothing in a democracy. The Economist called upon the Government to "scrap" the poll tax. In an editorial criticising the proposal, The Observer stated:Thatcher has lost poll tax argument".Perhaps surprisingly, and most witheringly of all, The Mail on Sunday gave the Government,Nought out of three for the poll tax targets".It is rumoured that it gave the Secretary of State nought out of three because it did not think that he could count any higher than that. The same leader then stated: 139Today, as the Government stumbles from ridicule to rebellion over the plan, it has achieved none of its primary objectives … The best solution for the Government is to cut its losses and plump, albeit through gritted teeth, for a progressive tax based as much on the ability to pay as on demand for services.The General Synod of the Church of England has also —[Interruption.] Oh, yes, the General Synod has also condemned the proposals,believing that a flat-rate community charge is inherently unjust and fails to take sufficient account of ability to pay".However, apparently all that condemnation counts for nothing—the Government plough on.The Tory Reform Group did not have a kind word to say for the poll tax. The Financial Times called it, "The wilting poll tax", stating:
The poll tax will never be the right solution to the complex problems of British local government finance. It will never, for this reason, be popular.It has been interesting to reflect on the wrigglings and writhings of Ministers in the face of all that. The Home Secretary went to his Witney constituency and the local paper the Oxford Times stated:Hurd says system is the fairest".However, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, on the same day, the front page of the same newspaper reported the mayor of the Tory Burford council in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency as stating,Poll tax will 'double rates bills'That is the kind of confusion and disarray that exists in Government circles, the Conservative party and the country.On Second Reading I pointed out that there were 344 places where matters were left for orders, ministerial decision or for a decision to be announced. By the end of the Committee stage there were 409 such instances and after one week on Report the total has risen incredibly to 649 such instances where no answer is available and it is left to ministerial discretion, orders or some other system yet to be announced or introduced in the House.
At least we have one achievement. On Tuesday 19 April the Secretary of State went on the BBC's "Today" programme and finally conceded that what we were talking about was not a community charge, but a tax. He said:
is this tax too harsh on the least well off.He went on to describe it later in the broadcast—I am quoting from the transcript—as follows:And, as you see in the national press the Poll Tax has not apparently affected the rating of the Party in the country.The Secretary of State had better tell that to his right hon. and hon. Friends as they go about their business, working for the party in the local elections in the next few weeks.The Prime Minister foolishly described the Bill as her flagship. It staggered off the stocks in December with almost all the officer class absent from the bridge. It sailed on in confusion through troubled waters and ran on to the rocks last Monday. I do not know why the Secretary of State thinks that the House of Lords will not ask some searching questions about his Bill. It certainly could not be described in any sense as a glittering, gleaming flagship now; it is more like a dirty Tory tramp steamer staggering along from problem to problem. Every time a serious argument arises, a few more of the crew jump ship and 140 disappear without trace. Every day last week and yet again today we have seen more and more deserters from the cause. It is not so much a flagship; more a Moby Nick.
There is no willing majority for this awful mess. There is no honest majority for it either, as Conservative Members realise. It does not deserve to move an inch further.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Before I call hon. Members from the Back Benches, I remind the House that this is a short debate and I ask for brief speeches.
§ Mr. W. Benyon (Milton Keynes)As we near the end of this great marathon I have a terrible feeling of foreboding. I have opposed the measure from the word go. I said so in my election address; I voted against it on Second Reading; I voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates); and I shall vote against the Bill again tonight.
I was surprised that the Opposition turned out in such force to vote for the amendment last Monday. I thought that some of the troops would be unavoidably absent because, like the Israelites finding manna in the wilderness, they could not believe their good fortune. Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them. For 18 months to two years before the next election the demands for this Tory tax will be fluttering on to 10 million doormats. It will not be a paper reminder; there will be visits from council officers.
Anybody who read The Observer yesterday will know what I am talking about. What brave people they are, asking about Aunt Nellie, young Jim and all the rest of them. From now on there will be a spate of cartoons, jokes and bitter comment.
All that can save us is the ineptitude of the Opposition —I suppose that we can count on that. The only other alternative would be for the Government to remove some of the burden on local authorities and therefore reduce the incidence of the tax.
My hon. Friends are all experienced canvassers and their efforts during the previous election campaign played a large part in the result. What reaction do they expect on the doorsteps in two years' time? Obviously there will be winners and they will approve, but I suspect that their approval will be muted. There will also be vehement opposition from the losers. But surely what there will not be is any acceptance that the local council is responsible for its position. Councils will blame the Government, as indeed they now blame the Government, for the rates.
No other Government in the western world have tried a poll tax. Some have thought about it, but they have all rejected it. I ask my hon. Friends, would Disraeli have introduced such a tax? Would Salisbury, Bonar-Law, Baldwin, Churchill or Eden have introduced such a tax? The answer must be no. It is against the tradition of our party. It is a new Conservativism. It may be new, but it is certainly not Conservative.
§ Mr. Matthew TaylorAt the start of the final debate on the Tory tax—the poll tax—the Secretary of State prefaced his remarks by saying that the Bill had stood up remarkably well to examination in this House. A majority 141 of 25 for the showpiece of the Government is remarkable. I am not entirely sure that that is the type of remarkable event that the Secretary of State wanted his flagship to enjoy.
As the Bill has passed through the House we have, as in so many cases, seen a bad Bill get worse. Almost all the anomalies that appeared in the Bill are still there. It is still discriminating against those becoming mentally ill, it is still discriminating against student nurses. It is still penalising medical students and remand prisoners. It is still hurting those least able to stand up for themselves and least able to defend themselves against the tax. Worse still, the Government have surpassed themselves in their ability to make bad things worse because they have introduced measures to ensure that even the homeless—the dossers —will not escape the tax. They have introduced imprisonment as the penalty for those who cannot pay. They have instigated yet more expenditure controls on local authorities unable, even now, to provide a decent service for those within their authority.
As to the only possible improvement that the Government tried to give us—the changes in the withdrawal on rebates—the truth will out. The Government wanted to take back what they had given by the back door while presenting that change to their Back Benchers at the front door and asking for their support.
The Secretary of State says that there is no alternative that can work. His measure, however, is not supported by any other country. Even those countries that still have a poll tax are withdrawing it, whereas the local income tax is present in country after country—it is made to work in those countries.
The Minister for Local Government should consider how he will explain to student nurses in Shepway why they would save 34 per cent. under our local income tax scheme in comparison with the Secretary of State's proposals. In the constituency of the Minister for Local Government, student nurses would save 36 per cent. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) kept jumping up and down and telling us about student nurses. He should bear in mind that, under our scheme, student nurses would save 27 per cent. in his constituency.
There are alternatives to the poll tax—we have heard of such alternatives from Conservative Back Benchers. Those alternatives have been put forward for various measures. With vote after rebellious vote the flagship has sunk deeper into the water.
The truth is that the Secretary of State cannot defend his proposals. He has to twist arms, using the Whips Office, and offices in the constituencies of Conservative Members, who are too honourable to permit the passing of the Bill without protest. I hope that at the end of the debate those hon. Members will show their honour once again by fighting this proposed Tory tax. They would be doing a service, because, if nothing else, this will be a one-Government tax. It will not just be thrown away as soon as another party comes into Government. It will be thrown away and recognised as a failure as soon as the Prime Minister changes, whatever party he or she may represent.
That shows the lack of support for the Bill, and Conservative Members know it. There have been no cheers for the Secretary of State, no smiles, and no pleasure in its passing. There is only fear on the Conservative Benches, because they know the havoc that it will wreak in the local elections and the general election to come.
§ Sir David Price (Eastleigh)I should tell the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that I am joining ship at this point. As I have not yet spoken on the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words before we say au revoir to the Bill. It certainly will not be adieu.
I have long been a critic of the domestic rating system, and I have spoken on the subject in the House many times. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has produced a Bill to abolish the domestic rating system, and we should not pass the Bill without noting that. In saying goodbye to the domestic rates, let us remember that they are unfair, overcomplex, out-of-date and deeply resented by many of the people who pay them. Let us also remember that, if we continued the domestic rating system, there would have to be a revaluation——
§ Mr. MaxtonWe have had one.
§ Sir David PriceI know. The hon. Gentleman makes a cogent comment. What happened in Scotland shows exactly what would happen if we had it in England and Wales—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members had been in government, they would have taken the kicks for that revaluation. Any Government in power would take the kicks after such a revaluation.
It does not follow that a substitute local tax would be automatically superior to the domestic rates. It appears from our debates that not all my colleagues are entirely over the moon with the new community charge. However, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have not heard a superior solution offered during our debates.
We should also remember that it is no good advancing theoretical options that are administratively impossible to run. Nor is it any good to put forward proposals on taxes that are already pre-empted by national taxes. I think especially of a local sales tax. What my right hon. Friend has proposed in the Bill is a reasonable alternative to the domestic rate, provided that it is retained at the levels currently suggested for the shire counties. The knowledge that the charge is expected to produce only a quarter of local government revenue is a safeguard against its getting out of hand, but it always remains open to the Government to increase the taxpayers' contribution. That should be a great comfort to those who are doubtful about the future level of charges.
Furthermore—it is sufficient for my purposes to note the possibility, and it was confirmed by my right hon. Friend in his speech on Third Reading—the Bill provides a secure escape route for those who doubt whether the charge will be held at the present proposed level. It is also important to note that, should new duties of national importance be placed on local authorities by the Government or by Parliament, specific grants should be given to cover them. I have in mind in particular the current proposal by Sir Roy Griffiths that care in the community should move to local authorities.
With those two reservations, I shall be very content to vote for Third Reading.
§ Mr. Terry DavisThis Bill is not about accountability but about redistribution—the redistribution of taxation and therefore of income and wealth. The Bill's real objective is to shift the cost of local government from the 143 people with the highest incomes, living in the biggest and most expensive houses, to people with average and below average incomes, living in flats, bungalows, terraced houses and, many families living in typical three-bedroomed semi-detached houses—owner-occupiers and council tenants alike. The people of this country reject this Tory tax, and that is one of the reasons why they will reject this Tory Government.
§ Mr. Robin Squire (Hornchurch)I voted against the Bill on Second Reading and, given that there was little change in Committee, it will come as little surprise to my right hon. and hon. Friends if my vote remains the same on Third Reading.
I bitterly regret the fact that, as a result of property revaluation in Scotland, my party has been bounced into arguably the worst solution of all in local government finance. I have asked my hon. Friends to raise their eyes to other countries. If one does that, one sees three options: a tax on property, a tax on individuals, based on income, or a level charge across the board. I have no doubt that the last is the worst option. My biggest regret as someone who for a number of years has followed the whole question of local authority funding and how to achieve a better system is that tonight we are probably postponing a long-term solution. My real fear is that in a few years' time a Government—frankly, it could be under either of the major political parties—will come back to the House because the proposals will have been found to be unworkable in many ways, and exorbitantly expensive.
It is with a heavy heart that I announce that I shall not be supporting the Bill tonight.
§ Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon)Patently, the Bill does not have the wholehearted consent of the House of Commons. It does not have majority support in Wales, any more than its predecessor had majority support in Scotland, and many Conservative Members must be praying that the House of Lords will let the House of Commons off the hook.
The Bill is inherently unfair, in charging the millionaire and those on relatively low incomes the same for local government services. What is proposed is an inefficient way of collecting money; the Bill will double the cost of collecting charges for the local exchequer.
The imposition that the Bill will place on small businesses will not only be a burden on those businesses; it will make a travesty of regional policy and make impossible any meaningful approach to regeneration in areas away from the south-east of England.
The Government's failure to introduce proposals to safeguard the position of community councils will be felt in Wales, and parish councils will suffer in England. The Government should be ashamed of their failure to ensure a coherent policy for care in the community, with the result that people with mental handicaps will find themselves better off in institutional care than at home in the community.
It became clear in an earlier debate that the real danger is that the Government will be looking for ways of offloading charges from local government. In the end, the 144 most likely candidate for transfer from the county councils to the central Exchequer will be education, or at least the cost of teachers—another step towards the centralisation of services.
I appeal to Conservative Members who have the courage of their convictions to vote against this iniquitous tax.
§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)No one will seriously mourn the passing of the present domestic rating system. It is riddled with anomalies and unfairness. It gives every incentive for local councils to be profligate and to write cheques on other people's bank accounts. It gives no real incentive for local councils to be prudent, as they have little accountability to those whose money they spend, often with gay abandon.
The arguments against the present rating system are legion. Nothing kills off more quickly than the prospect of revaluation any lingering idea of retaining the existing rating system rather than opting for something new. We could not carry on with the existing system without a revaluation, since the last revaluation was in 1973. A revaluation now after 14 years would inevitably lead to massive disruption for ratepayers.
The community charge has many advantages. It is straightforward, nearly every adult over the age of 18 will be liable to pay an equal share, and there is protection for the weaker and poorer members of the community. It will ensure that those who spend the money will be accountable to those who provide much of the money that is spent. It will ensure that business, commerce and industry will no longer become prey to the unreasonable demands of unreasonable councils and will be a fairer system because 69 per cent. of pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off.
Estimates using sample information aggregated from family expenditure surveys show that most families will be better off paying the proposed community charge than they are with rates. On average, the community charge will be lower than the rates bill, at all income levels up to £150 a week. When it is fully implemented, 53 per cent. of households or 9.8 million families in England will gain from the community charge. Critics try to sink the community charge and to dream up as many obstacles as possible. It is a racing certainty that they cannot come up with an alternative that provides fairness and accountability by councillors to those who provide the money that they spend.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. BaldryThe Opposition will not be able to argue with any conviction whatever that the community charge will weaken democracy. They may rant about it, but throughout the passage of the Bill they have not come up with a viable alternative. They have been empty of ideas. The community charge will at last put the community in charge. It is a worthwhile and sensible reform and should command the support of the whole House.
§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)I was a member of the Committee and I can tell the House that we spent 147 hours debating the Bill. The first debate was about ability 145 to pay and the last debate will he about the same subject. I well remember the definition of the poll tax given by the Tory Reform Group. They said that it is fair only in the sense that the black death was fair. It is indiscriminate and strikes at rich and poor, young and old, unemployed and employed alike. That should be the theme of the last debate on the Bill.
Underlying the Bill is a let-them-eat-cake approach to social problems. It assumes a world of choice for everyone, but we know that choice is a function of economic viability arid, increasingly, the Government have denied that to many millions of people. The tax does nothing for individuals or for businesses. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in Committee about registration for individuals using the Simon Community, an organisation that looks after the destitute in London, and I well remember what he said. He said that he would be surprised if the community did not know where the people came from and where they went. That is the Government's view of reality, and that is why they are so out of touch.
I shall leave the last word to a constituent who sent me a definition of poll tax. It comes from the 1961 "Odhams Encyclopaedia" which says that it is
a tax per head of population—not graduated, imposed in primitive communities where it appears impossible to ascertain individual capacity to bear the burden.I say that it is imposed by primitive political individuals on the Government Front Bench who have no sense of social responsibility. A leader in The Times said that it is a social Bill with wider social implications, The Economist, which is a friend of the Government, said we should scrap the tax, and The Times said it should he scuppered in another place. But Conservative Members who have spoken against the Bill should not confine their courage to their voices. They should transfer it to their feet by joining us and voting against the Bill tonight.
§ Mr. Simon Burns (Chelmsford)I shall not detain the House for too long. After seven days on the Floor of the House and more than 140 hours in Committee debating numerous technical amendments and a number of welcome concessions, the community charge remains essentially the same as it leaves the House as it was when it entered this place.
The reason for that is not unexpected. We fought the last election on a manifesto that clearly stated that the community charge would be a fixed rate charge. On Second Reading, a substantial majority voted for the Bill. In Committee, although there were many Divisions, our majorities were large. Last Monday, on an amendment to change the basic idea behind the community charge, the Government's majority dropped, but it should never be forgotten that there was still a majority of 25 votes. Indeed, 320 of my hon. Friends supported the Government.
Finally, as the Bill goes to the other place, its opponents are clamouring for help. The alliance parties are inspiring the will of the House of Lords to do the work that could not be done in the House of Commons because this House did not approve changing the Bill. Lloyd George certainly must be smiling in his grave at the ironic position of the Opposition. The Labour party is clamouring for help from the House of Lords. The Labour party now must be 146 pleased that the proposed reform of that body by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) never saw the light of day.
As the measure reaches the other place, the Lords should think very carefully before they try to do anything substantially to change the Bill. The legislation was in our manifesto on which we won the election. Many Conservative Members voted consistently for the Bill I advise the Lords not to jump in too quickly to thwart the will of the House.
§ Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich)The defects of the poll tax are innumerable. It is cumbersome to administer, it is more difficult to collect and it creates the bureaucratic burden of maintaining the poll tax legislation. The fact that today we have heard that the poll tax will be subject to a capping mechanism shows that the Government do not believe their own promise that it will make local government more accountable.
The poll tax will increase the temptation to avoid registering to vote. Above all, the tax is not fair. It is hitting the poorest people in our society the hardest. Only last week I was told by a wealthy single man with two homes that he stood to gain £2,500 as a result of the measure. The people in Greenwich will lose almost universally. A survey of 1,500 people shows that 93 per cent. of the people in Greenwich will lose and 62 per cent. of them will lose by more than £500 a year. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I ask the House to give the hon. Lady a fair hearing.
§ Mrs. BarnesNot only are the poor hit hard by the measure, but those on modest average incomes will find it extremely hard to pay an extra £500, £600 or £700 a year.
It has been suggested that no alternative has been put forward. Time and again my party has said that local income tax and proportional representation would at a stroke make local authorities properly democratically accountable.
§ Sir Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I thought it a bad Bill and I should now like to see it dumped in the legislative dustbin from which its major provision came. The community charge is regressive, inefficient and unfair. The arguments in its favour were always thin and they have grown shabby and worn with repetition. Claims about increased accountability are wildly exaggerated and the statistics deployed in aid are, at best, questionable.
The poll tax is generally unpopular. The Committee and Report stages demonstrated that much of the Bill has been ill-prepared. The 11th hour concession about rebates was an inadequate response to the widespread desire, and our earlier commitment, that the new tax should take account of the ability of the individual or the household to pay. The circumstances surrounding this concession leave a nasty taste in one's mouth.
I regard the manifesto argument and justification as largely bogus. The issue was not generally discussed and debated at the general election. Indeed, Ministers were astonishingly reticent. or perhaps politically wise, in saying little about it. Some candidates, including myself, were careful to distance themselves from the proposal.
147 I cannot recall any other major measure introduced by a Conservative Government since Winston Churchill returned to power in 1951 which is as potentially damaging to the long-term interests of the Conservative party as this Bill. As I look at its intrinsic unfairness and its bureaucratic implications, I am sorry and ashamed that such a Bill should be introduced by Conservative Ministers. However, it is not really a Conservative measure, but rather a product of what is labelled by the media as Thatcherism.
Of course the Bill contains some useful provisions, but, in my judgment, these are insufficient to outweigh the fundamental flaws of this unfair community charge proposal. I shall vote against Third Reading.
§ Mr. WilsonThe right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) have spoken perceptively about the political realities of what is going through. Even when the Bill staggers out of this House and into the other place, the debate will not end. It is only just beginning. It will continue for another two years in the country. Day by day, people learn more about the poll tax, and there is a straightforward progression in all of this. The more that they know about it, the more they are opposed to it.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has been the only Tory Back-Bench Member to speak in favour of the Bill. I can use the script that he used, because I have here a brief from the Conservative reseach department. I recognised the phrases in it. It is a gullible's travels of the poll tax which gives the more gullible Conservative Members something to cling to. It says that the rates are anachronistic because they are a property tax. We do not believe that there is anything anachronistic about a property tax, and it is better to have an old but imperfect tax than an infinitely worse new tax. Tory Members are told to talk about lack of accountability and to tell people that nearly half of all local voters do not pay rates. That is a myth which appeals only to the simple-minded who believe that the only person to pay the rates is the one whose name happens to be on the rates demand.
Tories are told to go forth and tell the public that the rates are unfair and that a poor widow—presumably the same one who has just been hit by housing benefit cuts —pays the same as four adults. However, they are not to go forth and say that in future, under the poll tax, a millionaire will pay a quarter of what four poor adults will pay.
Conservatives are supposed to go forth and tell people that domestic rates are highly complex. However, they will not go forth and tell people that domestic rates are a model of clarity, compared with the Kafkaesque poll tax. Those are the facts. Eighty per cent. of the people in Scotland have come to despise the poll tax and its architects. The same process will take place in England and Wales.
The poll tax is wicked. It was conceived by people with no social concern, backed by people who do not have the independence of mind to think for themselves. The poll tax will be defeated, if not in this House, in the country. The people who have imposed the poll tax will be defeated with it.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)To the great amusement of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made much of the Tory flagship leaving port. At least the Tory flagship has set sail. Where is the Labour flagship? It is still tied firmly to the quay. At the 59th minute of the 11th hour, we still do not know Labour party policy. The House and the nation have a right to know what the Labour party intends to foist on the nation if we are ever so unlucky as to elect a Labour Government.
The Labour party is afeared. It is afeared that it can no longer foist large business rates on an unsuspecting business community. It is afeared that it can no longer foist heavy rate rises on the community knowing that in many areas only one in four voters actually pays rates.
The Labour party is afeared. This is an historic moment. The community charge will be based on people's ability to pay because three quarters of the cost will be accounted for by business and taxation. That is why Conservative Members will vote for the Third Reading, not just in their ones and twos, but in their tens and hundreds.
§ Mr. RookerWhen the keel was laid for this flagship, the Prime Minister was not here. As it sets sail out of the harbour off the House of Commons, she is not here. There is no member of the Cabinet on the Government Front Bench except the Secretary of State for the Environment. Ministers are distancing themselves as far from this Bill as possible.
This Bill is the Tory flagship. The flagship will sink as a result of design defects as the flagship of the Royal Swedish navy sank as it left the harbour in 1628 because of design defects. The Bill is flawed. It is unfair and undemocratic. Indeed, it is anti-democratic in its drafting. It is also, of course, anti-local government from the first clause to the last.
Conservative Members have refused to defend any kind of independent local government system in this country. Five million adults in England will lose under the poll tax, including 1 million single pensioners. Those are the consequences awaiting this flagship.
Someone referred to concessions. We still do not know whether monks and nuns will be on rebates or exempt from the tax. The Government have lost the argument. Day in, clause in, and day out, clause out, they have lost the argument.
Every day over the past week, different Conservative Members voted against the Bill. The Bill would not pass on a free or secret vote. I challenge any Minister who contradicts that to raise his hand.
Our opposition has been positive and honourable. We have promoted amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax to make it fairer. We are promoting amendments to the Bill to change the nature of the tax, to make it fairer. We have promoted amendments to relate the tax to income, and to keep part of local government taxation related to property. At every juncture, the Government have rubbished each alternative. They have rubbished also the alternative put forward by their own Back Benchers. They have twisted the figures for exemption on every occasion that they have been put forward by the Opposition.
149 The words of a Conservative Member should be borne in mind; nobody will be able to accuse the Opposition——
§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)Of having a policy?
§ Mr. RookerNo one will be able to accuse any Opposition party of seeking to make crude party political capital out of this Bill. We do not want this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, we do not want the Bill, even though it will damage the Government to the point that they will lose the next election. We care about the detail but we do not want the Bill. That is why we have suggested alternatives. We have no secret desire to see the Bill on the statute book to the advantage of our party. Conservative Members may jest and laugh, but for them there is no long-stop down that Corridor. Whatever they may feel in their hearts, they will not deliver. The Bill will get its Third Reading, whatever the majority. However, I tell the Government that this Bill will bury them.
§ Mr. HowardI intended responding to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) by remarking on the absence from the Opposition Front Bench of members of the shadow Cabinet. However, I would have been doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice because a couple of minutes ago there crept into the recesses of the Chamber, and can still be seen hidden, none other than the right hon. Gentleman the deputy leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It was he who described the opposition of his party to this Bill as vacuous—not honourable and positive as was suggested by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, but vacuous, because the Opposition failed to put forward a policy of their own.
The Bill has occupied the attention of the House for a total of 188 hours. During the whole of our debate there has been one issue upon which almost all of us have been in complete agreement: we cannot continue with the existing system of paying for local government—the status quo is not an option. Change is urgently required, and only the Government had the courage to put to the people of this country specific proposals for change.
We had two objectives in seeking to reform the way in which we pay for local government. The need for accountability was recognised as long ago as 1966, when the Labour Government White Paper complained that many people who could afford to pay for local government made no contribution. The fact is that one will never achieve accountability in local government until everyone makes a direct contribution towards the cost of local authority services. The community charge, and only the community charge, fulfils that objective. We believe that a standard level of service should cost the same in every local authority area in the country. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve. We believe that any variations in local spending should be paid for by the local communities that benefit from that spending. That is what the community charge, and only the community charge, will achieve.
For years there has been a clamour across the party divide for an end to the domestic rating system. There is only one difference between ourselves and the Opposition parties. It is not that only the Government see the need for reform; it is that only the Government have the courage and determination to carry out that reform. It is reform 150 that will be good for local communities, good for local government, and good for the people of this country. I commend it to the House.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 259.
154| Division No. 275] | [10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Couchman, James |
| Alexander, Richard | Cran, James |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Allason, Rupert | Curry, David |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) |
| Amess, David | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Amos, Alan | Day, Stephen |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Devlin, Tim |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Ashby, David | Dicks, Terry |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Atkins, Robert | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Atkinson, David | Dover, Den |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Dunn, Bob |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Durant, Tony |
| Baldry, Tony | Eggar, Tim |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Batiste, Spencer | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Evennett, David |
| Bendall, Vivian | Fallon, Michael |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Farr, Sir John |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Favell, Tony |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey |
| Body, Sir Richard | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Forman, Nigel |
| Boswell, Tim | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Forth, Eric |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Franks, Cecil |
| Bowis, John | Freeman, Roger |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | French, Douglas |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Fry, Peter |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Gale, Roger |
| Brazier, Julian | Gardiner, George |
| Bright, Graham | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Gow, Ian |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Gregory, Conal |
| Burns, Simon | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Burt, Alistair | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Butcher, John | Grist, Ian |
| Butler, Chris | Ground, Patrick |
| Butterfill, John | Grylls, Michael |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Cash, William | Hannam, John |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Harris, David |
| Chapman, Sydney | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Chope, Christopher | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Churchill, Mr | Hayes, Jerry |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) | Hayward, Robert |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Heddle, John |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Colvin, Michael | Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) |
| Conway, Derek | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Hill, James |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Cope, John | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Holt, Richard | Neubert, Michael |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Howard, Michael | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Page, Richard |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Paice, James |
| Hunter, Andrew | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Patnick, Irvine |
| Irving, Charles | Patten, Chris (Bath) |
| Jack, Michael | Patten, John (Oxford W) |
| Jackson, Robert | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Janman, Tim | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Jessel, Toby | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Portillo, Michael |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Price, Sir David |
| Key, Robert | Raffan, Keith |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Redwood, John |
| King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) | Renton, Tim |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Knapman, Roger | Riddick, Graham |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Knowles, Michael | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Lang, Ian | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Latham, Michael | Rost, Peter |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Rowe, Andrew |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Ryder, Richard |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Lightbown, David | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Lilley, Peter | Scott, Nicholas |
| Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lord, Michael | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Lyell, Sir Nicholas | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Shersby, Michael |
| Macfarlane, Sir Neil | Sims, Roger |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Maclean, David | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Speed, Keith |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Speller, Tony |
| Madel, David | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Malins, Humfrey | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mans, Keith | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Maples, John | Steen, Anthony |
| Marland, Paul | Stern, Michael |
| Marlow, Tony | Stevens, Lewis |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stokes, John |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Sumberg, David |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Summerson, Hugo |
| Mellor, David | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Miller, Hal | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mills, Iain | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Moate, Roger | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Thorne, Neil |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Thurnham, Peter |
| Moore, Rt Hon John | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Morrison, Hon P (Chester) | Tracey, Richard |
| Moss, Malcolm | Tredinnick, David |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Trippier, David |
| Neale, Gerrard | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Needham, Richard | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Nelson, Anthony | Viggers, Peter |
| Waddington, Rt Hon David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Wakeham, Rt Hon John | Wilkinson, John |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Wilshire, David |
| Walden, George | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Walker, Bill (T'side North) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Waller, Gary | Wood, Timothy |
| Ward, John | Woodcock, Mike |
| Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) | Yeo, Tim |
| Warren, Kenneth | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Watts, John | |
| Wheeler, John | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Whitney, Ray | Mr. Robert Boscawen and |
| Widdecombe, Ann | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Adley, Robert | Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) |
| Allen, Graham | Dewar, Donald |
| Alton, David | Dixon, Don |
| Anderson, Donald | Dobson, Frank |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Doran, Frank |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Douglas, Dick |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Ashton, Joe | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Eadie, Alexander |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Eastham, Ken |
| Barron, Kevin | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Battle, John | Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) |
| Beckett, Margaret | Fatchett, Derek |
| Beith, A. J. | Faulds, Andrew |
| Bell, Stuart | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Fisher, Mark |
| Benyon, W. | Flannery, Martin |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Flynn, Paul |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Foster, Derek |
| Blair, Tony | Foulkes, George |
| Blunkett, David | Fraser, John |
| Boateng, Paul | Fyfe, Maria |
| Boyes, Roland | Galbraith, Sam |
| Bradley, Keith | Galloway, George |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | George, Bruce |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Buchan, Norman | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Buckley, George J. | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Caborn, Richard | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Callaghan, Jim | Gordon, Mildred |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Gould, Bryan |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Graham, Thomas |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Cartwright, John | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Hardy, Peter |
| Clay, Bob | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Clelland, David | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Cohen, Harry | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Coleman, Donald | Henderson, Doug |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Corbett, Robin | Holland, Stuart |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Home Robertson, John |
| Cormack, Patrick | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Cousins, Jim | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Cox, Tom | Howells, Geraint |
| Crowther, Stan | Hoyle, Doug |
| Cryer, Bob | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Cummings, John | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Darling, Alistair | Hume, John |
| Illsley, Eric | McTaggart, Bob |
| Ingram, Adam | McWilliam, John |
| Irvine, Michael | Madden, Max |
| Janner, Greville | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| John, Brynmor | Marek, Dr John |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Martlew, Eric |
| Kennedy, Charles | Maxton, John |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Meacher, Michael |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Meale, Alan |
| Knox, David | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Lambie, David | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Lamond, James | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Leighton, Ron | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Lewis, Terry | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Litherland, Robert | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Livingstone, Ken | Morley, Elliott |
| Livsey, Richard | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Morrison, Hon Sir Charles |
| Loyden, Eddie | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| McAllion, John | Mullin, Chris |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Murphy, Paul |
| McCartney, Ian | Nellist, Dave |
| Macdonald, Calum A. | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| McFall, John | O'Brien, William |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | O'Neill, Martin |
| McKelvey, William | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| McLeish, Henry | Parry, Robert |
| Maclennan, Robert | Patchett, Terry |
| McNamara, Kevin | Pendry, Tom |
| Pike, Peter L. | Squire, Robin |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Prescott, John | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Stott, Roger |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Strang, Gavin |
| Randall, Stuart | Straw, Jack |
| Rathbone, Tim | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Redmond, Martin | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn | Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis |
| Reid, Dr John | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Richardson, Jo | Turner, Dennis |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Vaz, Keith |
| Robertson, George | Wall, Pat |
| Robinson, Geoffrey | Wallace, James |
| Rogers, Allan | Walley, Joan |
| Rooker, Jeff | Warden, Gareth (Gower) |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Ruddock, Joan | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Salmond, Alex | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Sheerman, Barry | Wilson, Brian |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Winnick, David |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Short, Clare | Worthington, Tony |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wray, Jimmy |
| Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) | |
| Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Snape, Peter | Mr. Robert N. Wareing and |
| Soley, Clive | Mr. Alun Michael. |
| Spearing, Nigel |