HC Deb 28 July 1997 vol 299 cc107-17
Mr. Boswell

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 47, line 32, after first 'of' insert '£1 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration up to £250,000, and at the rate of'.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, line 33, after 'consideration;', insert 'in excess of £250,000'.

No. 9, line 34, after 'case', insert—

  1. '(i) the rate of £1 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration up to £250,000,
  2. (ii) the rate of £1.50 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration over £250,000 but below £500,000, and
  3. (iii)'.

No. 10, line 35, after 'consideration', insert 'over £500,000'.

Mr. Boswell

We come now to stamp duty. For a Tory, there is a certain nostalgic affection for a tax introduced 303 years ago, which has been doing its business for the nation ever since with comparatively little fuss and very little scrutiny in this place. There is a certain nostalgia about a tax whose head legislation is the Stamp Duty Act 1891, updated, of course, by electronic systems for data, especially in relation to securities, and the stamp duty reserve tax—also, I believe, introduced by Lord Lawson—which will raise, according to Government proposals, more than £3 billion in the current year, and which, significantly, was last increased in 1974. I wonder which party was in power when stamp duty was last increased.

By way of introduction, I have a short piece of advice for the Financial Secretary. When the Bill is out of the way, perhaps she will spare a little time to go down to Bush house and see the Stamp Office in operation. I had occasion to do so, on re-registering some of my children's securities. There are not many of those securities, but when the children reached the age of 18 the securities needed to be upgraded by a 50p stamp to put them in their own name. It was money well spent to see the people marking and stamping those documents. I am not sure that it raised much revenue, but it certainly is an interesting place to visit.

I now come to the substance of our amendments, and of the important changes—so far undiscussed because of the guillotine—that the Government propose. Before the Budget, my attention was drawn to a positive flurry of three economic reports, which were submitted to the Chancellor and may have modestly influenced his thinking for the better. There were Miller and Scott on residential property, Barber and White on commercial property, and the Centre for Economics and Business Research on the overall economic impact. Collectively, they may have stopped in their tracks the slightly sillier ideas that the Government had to increase stamp duty to 6 or 7 per cent. If they did so, I am very pleased.

A strange set of proposals for stamp duty has emerged, however. First, there is very little impact indeed on the residential property market. It seems likely that this proposal will affect 30,000 residential properties in a full year—between 1 and 1.5 per cent. of the residential property market, amounting to a full year yield of about £130 million. Arguably, therefore, the average cost per dwelling of those affected is about £4,000, which is a small impact on a small proportion of residential properties, by definition exceeding £250,000 in value.

Interestingly, today's press reports make it clear that among those who pay the tax will be the Prime Minister, who has recently disposed of his property for rather more than £600,000, and will therefore pay £6,000 extra—but he need not worry too much because he has trousered a capital gain in excess of £200,000 on it anyway, and there is no windfall tax on those capital gains.

At any rate, the Government cannot seriously argue that this set of proposals has a significant impact on the prices of residential property. If there were a boom, if there were over-heating—the evidence for that remains questionable—it would still represent a peashooter approach to tackling it.

On the other hand, the true effect is felt in the commercial property sector. Interestingly, according to the Government's figures, three quarters of the revenue of stamp duty in the property sector is raised on residential property, but three quarters of the increase will affect the commercial property sector—one quarter of the market. Some 20,000 such properties will be affected annually.

This is, therefore, yet another hit on business, and it is entirely consistent with the approach adopted by the Government elsewhere in the Budget. It is the sort of measure which gives rise to the International Monetary Fund saying, in a report which Labour Members have cited as positive for them, that something will have to be done about consumer spending elsewhere because the Government have not had the courage to tackle it now. That is a judgment which the Government need to take.

Estimates in the surveys to which I referred are that, as pension funds and insurance companies own some £60 billion of commercial property in this country, stamp duty is likely to affect the valuation of their funds by an estimated £300 million alone on pension funds and a larger sum on insurance funds. It would therefore chime in nicely with the changes in advance corporation tax, which have seriously damaged those interests in the Budget. It is yet another indirect hit on the citizen through the medium of business. For that reason, if for no other, we criticise it severely and will oppose it tonight.

My next point may be smaller, but is, none the less, significant. In their anxiety to shield the residential property sector, the Government have put a burden not merely on the commercial sector and real property but on other kinds of property transfer by document. For example, the Institute of Directors pointed out that stamp duty covers transfers of good will, intellectual property, of which I have some knowledge, and so forth. At any rate, the Financial Secretary may care to offer a figure for the breakdown of the impact between commercial property and the other kinds of property swept up by the clause.

Our main concern and the substance of the amendments is the structure of the duty. It is interesting that the bulk of stamp duty is still raised from marketable securities, which attract—in current circumstances it is reasonable that they should continue to attract—a separate 0.5 per cent. rate of duty. Indeed, if the rate were to rise any higher, it would severely damage London's competitiveness as a financial centre.

May I return to real property, which is the subject of the amendments? We now have an extraordinary situation. Under the old arrangements applicable until the Budget, there was a zero rate for properties under £60,000 and one positive rate of 1 per cent. thereafter. We now have an unchanged zero rate, but three positive rates: 1 per cent. for properties up to £250,000; 1.5 per cent. for properties worth between £250,000 and £500,000; and 2 per cent. for properties worth more than that, which applied to the Prime Minister.

I admit that ever since the 1960s when I first became involved in taxation policy, I have always disliked the way in which the stamp duty system operates. It operates on a "slab" rather than a "slice" system. Tax is charged up to a certain threshold, and the rate is then increased for the whole of the charge thereafter—not for the first tranche with a different rate for the next tranche, but right through on the whole amount. That gives rise to some unsatisfactory effects. It may be another byproduct of the Government's haste in introducing their legislation this summer that they have been unable to redesign the system and come up with a smoother progression.

My objections to the slab system are that, given that the rates are very small—1 to 2 per cent.—there is little progressivity within the slabs. Whatever the figures are between £60,000 and £250,000, whether the house is comparatively small or large, the charge is the same.

9.45 pm

Given a low rate of, say, 1.5 per cent., the change in value between—I choose two arbitrary figures—a house of £275,000 and one of £276,000 would be £15 extra tax. That is hardly a material difference. The case is, however, entirely different at the margin, which is the substance of the amendments.

If one moves across the margin into a new tax rate, it triggers the higher rate throughout the whole cost. The Institute of Directors, for example, pointed out that a move in value from £250,000 to £251,000 would move up the duty from £2,500 to £3,765. That is an extra tax not of £15 on exactly the same step as in the example that I quoted for a property of higher value, but of £1,265 on an increase in value of £1,000. That is a marginal rate of 126.5 per cent., by my calculation.

If the property were on offer and the contract was made at £250,001, almost exactly the same tax hike would take effect, but the marginal rate would reach the stratosphere.

In practice, of course—this is a bad sign for tax propriety—vendors, purchasers and their professional advisers will move heaven and earth at the marginal points to try to prevent the situation arising. All manner of deals will be done with the furniture or excluding the light bulbs to bring the value below the magic threshold. That is a bad way of conducting taxation.

The Institute of Directors proposes a slice system. Although it is silent on the first £60,000, which is of course tax free at present, the taxable rate, as I understand the proposal, would be 1 per cent. on the first £250,000 of value, 1.5 per cent. on the next £250,000 of value, and 2 per cent. thereafter.

Without access to the full Revenue figures, it is complex to work out the likely implications of trying to balance the revenue. I strongly suspect, particularly given the facts that I have mentioned, that we would be able to secure the same revenue with only small adjustments in the bands, and that the system would be a great deal fairer.

The amendments show an unfairness in the structure of the stamp duty that the Government have introduced. We do not like the changes because they are skewed towards the commercial sector, as the Government have run away from taxing the personal sector. We would prefer the Financial Secretary to withdraw the proposals tonight. We will put that to a vote.

In any case, if, given the exigencies of time, the Financial Secretary does not feel that she can adequately reply to the debate tonight, I hope that she and her advisers will go away and think about a better structure to operate in the future. There was no problem with the previous rates, but the changes that the Government have made by evolution from the traditional structure have created gross unfairness and will do significant damage.

Mr. Gibb

We have already seen an example tonight of old Labour emerging from behind the mask of new Labour, with its antipathy to medical insurance.

With the doubling of the rate of stamp duty, we hark back to the era of the last Labour Government. The first Budget of that Government, on 26 March 1974, did precisely the same as the present Budget in doubling the rate of stamp duty from 1 to 2 per cent. Fortunately, in a subsequent Conservative Budget in March 1984, the rate of stamp duty was reduced again to 1 per cent.

It has always been my view that stamp duty should be repealed. In today's society, there is no longer a role for stamp duty. It was my hope that the previous Government had as a long-term aim the ultimate abolition of this anachronistic tax. Labour Members may recall that in the 1990 Budget, the Chancellor began the process of abolishing stamp duty on share transactions, a move which was linked to the implementation of the TAURUS computer system in the London stock exchange. Alas, with the demise of that system, so went the abolition of stamp duty on share prices. I am, however, still hopeful that a future Conservative Government will get round to abolishing stamp duty on shares and on property transactions.

This Government are moving in the opposite direction. They have begun their period in office by doubling the rate of stamp duty which will raise £240 million in 1997–98 and £490 million in 1998–99. It is another example of this Government scrabbling for every penny, oblivious of the damage to the wider economy that such measures cause. They are oblivious to the 0.06 per cent. fall in GDP as a result of this one measure and they are oblivious to the thousands of job losses it will cause, particularly in the construction industry. Those are facts, according to the Centre for Economic and Business Research which has shown that there will be a fall of 0.75 per cent. in private housing sector output as a result of this measure. The Government appear to be oblivious to all the indirect and unforeseen consequences of this one Budget measure, which is being implemented simply to scrabble extra millions for their long-term spending plans.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, stamp duty applies to business properties as well as to residential properties. It applies, for example, to the transfer of good will and to businesses whose sale or disposal requires transfer by document. Those documents have to be stamped with a rate of 1 per cent. and, now, some will be stamped with a rate of 2 per cent.

This measure will hit the commercial sector disproportionately harder than the residential sector, yet we were told that it was introduced to help to dampen down the residential property market. Three quarters of all stamp duty is paid by the residential sector, but three quarters of the stamp duty increase will fall on the commercial side.

The measure will distort business. Throughout much of the Budget, proposals are implemented for one purpose, but the results are completely the opposite. Although the Budget is meant generally to take the heat out of the domestic housing market, the abolition of tax credits on dividends receivable by pension funds, for example, will shift billions of pounds of investment from UK equities into the commercial and residential property sectors, thereby fuelling price increases. It will, therefore, have precisely the opposite effect from that intended.

The increase in stamp duty is an attack on home ownership and it joins the other attacks on home ownership in the Budget. We have had the phasing down of MIRAS, we have had three interest rate rises in as many months, and now we have the increase in stamp duty. It is yet another of the many examples of distorting measures in the Budget.

Clause 8, for example, will end the freezing of duty on beer. That will distort the market in beer and will lead to higher levels of smuggling. Clause 19 introduces a distorting measure with the abolition of ACT credits which will mean massive changes to the investment policies of pension funds and other institutions in the City. We have seen the distorting effects of clause 20; the abolition of section 242 relief will have an effect on open-ended investment companies. We have also seen the distorting effect of clause 30 with the abolition of tax credits for non-tax-paying individuals, whereas we are keeping tax credits for higher-rate and basic-rate taxpayers. There are also distorting effects in clause 42, with the implementation of temporary first-year allowances for only small and medium-sized enterprises.

The amendment is designed to end the slab scale of the previous stamp duty regime. The intention behind it is the introduction of a rising scale of stamp duty measures so that we do not have yet another distorting measure. For example, if someone happens to be selling a house at a price that approaches one of the arbitrary sums imposed by the Government—£60,000, £250,000 or £500,000—there is an enormous difference when it comes to consideration of whether the contract should be one of those sums. Sellers and buyers will go to enormous lengths to recategorise the assets that are being sold, such as fixtures and fittings or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, light bulbs or light switches. The Government's proposal will have an enormous distorting effect in the marketplace.

The amendment will do much to reduce or eliminate one of the many distorting effects introduced by the Government in the Budget. I hope that it will be agreed to.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling)

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) having been signalled to resume his place by his colleagues, I shall make a few comments before we conclude this evening's proceedings.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made four points, one of which had some substance. I shall return to it briefly. First, he invited my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to visit Bush house to watch the stamping process. As a legal apprentice, I watched documents being stamped on many occasions, and fascinating is not a word which I would use to describe the process. I would say, however, that the opportunity to get out of the office, especially on a nice, hot summer's day, was something which I and all my fellow apprentices used to welcome.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Daventry said that we might have had more time to discuss these matters had it not been for the guillotine. I shall not pretend to be the best attender of debates in Standing Committee, because my other duties kept me elsewhere, but I have read the reports of the proceedings. If Conservative Members had not spent so much time discussing their Welsh mothers, tours of south America and various other discursions on Americanisms and other matters, there might have been more time to spend on the Bill. I have come to the conclusion, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that Conservative Members seemed determined never to finish consideration of the Bill because they wanted to claim that the guillotine was operating against them.

It is said that there is no overheating in the economy, especially in the housing market. I suppose that that will always be a matter of judgment. Suffice it to say that we reached the judgment that action was necessary to encourage stability in the housing market. I think that we would have the support of many members of the public, bearing in mind the heavy price that the paid for the unsustainable housing boom that wa caused by the Conservative party's policies in the 1980s. We can agree to disagree, but we believed that action was necessary. Our proposal will raise valuable revenue. We do not shrink from the fact that that revenue is needed to finance the debt reduction programme that is necessary because of the large level of debt that we inherited from the outgoing Conservative Government.

Mr. Woodward

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Darling

No. I do not have time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Indeed, he has not spoken in the short debate to which I am responding.

I take up the one issue raised by the hon. Member for Daventry that had some substance, although I do not agree with the conclusion that he reached. Should we have a slice system or confine ourselves to what he described as a slab system? The slab system may have problems and in some respects it may be deficient, but it is the system which the Conservative Government operated in the 1970s. Indeed, it is the same system that the Conservative Administration operated in th early 1990s.

It is possible to have a slice system—I do not quarrel with that—and the amendment, if agreed to, would result in quite a significant loss of revenue. For that reason alone, I would recommend the House should reject it. But the suggestion that not introducing a slice system would be negligent does not stand up. The hon. Member for Daventry claims that he has wished something could be done ever since he started studying taxation, but he did nothing over the past 18 years while the Conservatives presided. I recognise the problems to which he has referred, but I believe that the proposal in the Bill is the right one. I urge my right hon. an hon. Friends to reject the amendment and to support the clause as it stands.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 367.

Division No.70] [9.59 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Cash, William
Amess, David Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James Chope, Christopher
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Clappison, James
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Baldry, Tony Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bercow, John
Blunt, Crispin Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Body, Sir Richard Cormack, Sir Patrick
Boswell, Tim Curry, Rt Hon David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Brady, Graham Day, Stephen
Brazier, Julian Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Duncan, Alan
Browning, Mrs Angela Duncan Smith, Iain
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Burns, Simon Evans, Nigel
Faber, David May, Mrs Theresa
Fabricant, Michael Merchant, Piers
Fallon, Michael Moss, Malcolm
Flight, Howard Nicholls, Patrick
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Ottaway, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Page, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam Paice, James
Garnier, Edward Pickles, Eric
Gibb, Nick Prior, David
Gill, Christopher Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gray, James Ruffley, David
Green, Damian St Aubyn, Nick
Greenway, John Sayeed, Jonathan
Grieve, Dominic Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Hague, Rt Hon William Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Soames, Nicholas
Hammond, Philip Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Hawkins, Nick Spicer, Sir Michael
Heald, Oliver Spring, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John Streeter, Gary
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Swayne, Desmond
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Syms, Robert
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Tapsell, Sir Peter
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Taylor, Sir Teddy
Key, Robert Temple-Morris, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Tredinnick, David
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Trend, Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Tyrie, Andrew
Leigh, Edward Viggers, Peter
Letwin, Oliver Walter, Robert
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Wardle, Charles
Lidington, David Waterson, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Wells, Bowen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Whitney, Sir Raymond
Loughton, Tim Whittingdale, John
Luff, Peter Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Willetts, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
McIntosh, Miss Anne Woodward, Shaun
MacKay, Andrew Yeo, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David Young, Rt Hon Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick
Malins, Humfrey Tellers for the Ayes:
Mates, Michael Sir David Madel and
Maude, Rt Hon Francis Mr. James Cran.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Ainger, Nick Bennett, Andrew F
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Benton, Joe
Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam) Berry, Roger
Allen, Graham (Nottingham N) Best, Harold
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Betts, Clive
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Blackman, Liz
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Blears, Ms Hazel
Ashton, Joe Blizzard, Bob
Atherton, Ms Candy Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Atkins, Charlotte Boateng, Paul
Baker, Norman Borrow, David
Ballard, Mrs Jackie Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Banks, Tony Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Barnes, Harry Bradshaw, Ben
Barron, Kevin Brand, Dr Peter
Battle, John Brinton, Mrs Helen
Bayley, Hugh Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Beard, Nigel
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S) Buck, Ms Karen
Beith, Rt Hon A J Burden, Richard
Butler, Christine Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Byers, Stephen Fyfe, Maria
Caborn, Richard Galbraith, Sam
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Gapes, Mike
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) George, Andrew (St Ives)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Gerrard, Neil
Canavan, Dennis Gibson, Dr Ian
Caplin, Ivor Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Casale, Roger Godman, Dr Norman A
Caton, Martin Godsiff, Roger
Cawsey, Ian Golding, Mrs Llin
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Chisholm, Malcolm Gorrie, Donald
Church, Ms Judith Graham, Thomas
Clapham, Michael Grant, Bernie
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Grocott, Bruce
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Grogan, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Gunnell, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hain, Peter
Clwyd, Ann Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Coaker, Vernon Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Coffey, Ms Ann Hancock, Mike
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith) Hanson, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Cooper, Yvette Harris, Dr Evan
Corbyn, Jeremy Harvey, Nick
Corston, Ms Jean Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cousins, Jim Healey, John
Cox, Tom Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Cranston, Ross Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Crausby, David Hepburn, Stephen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Heppell, John
Cummings, John Hesford, Stephen
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hill, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Hinchliffe, David
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland) Hodge, Ms Margaret
Hoon, Geoffrey
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Hopkins, Kelvin
Dalyell, Tam Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Darvill, Keith Howells, Dr Kim
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Hoyle, Lindsay
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Dawson, Hilton Humble, Mrs Joan
Dean, Mrs Janet Hurst, Alan
Denham, John Hutton, John
Dismore, Andrew Iddon, Dr Brian
Dobbin, Jim Illsley, Eric
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Donohoe, Brian H Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Doran, Frank Jamieson, David
Dowd, Jim Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Drown, Ms Julia Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Edwards, Huw Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Efford, Clive Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Fearn, Ronnie Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Field, Rt Hon Frank Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Fisher, Mark Jowell, Ms Tessa
Fitzpatrick, Jim Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Fitzsimons, Lorna Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Flint, Caroline Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Flynn, Paul Keetch, Paul
Follett, Barbara Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Khabra, Piara S
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) Powell, Sir Raymond
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kirkwood, Archy Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kumar, Dr Ashok Prescott, Rt Hon John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Primarolo, Dawn
Lawrence, Ms Jackie Prosser, Gwyn
Laxton, Bob Quin, Ms Joyce
Lepper, David Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)
Leslie, Christopher Rammell, Bill
Levitt, Tom Rapson, Syd
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Raynsford, Nick
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Liddell, Mrs Helen Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Linton, Martin Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Lock, David Roche, Mrs Barbara
Love, Andrew Rogers, Allan
McAllion, John Rooker, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas Rooney, Terry
McCabe, Stephen Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCafferty, Ms Chris Rowlands, Ted
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) Ruane, Chris
Macdonald, Calum Ruddock, Ms Joan
McDonnell, John Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McIsaac, Shona Ryan, Ms Joan
McKenna, Ms Rosemary Salter, Martin
Mackinlay, Andrew Sanders, Adrian
McNulty, Tony Savidge, Malcolm
MacShane, Denis Sawford, Phil
McWalter, Tony Sedgemore, Brian
Mahon, Mrs Alice Shaw, Jonathan
Mallaber, Judy Sheerman, Barry
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Short, Rt Hon Clare
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Martlew, Eric Singh, Marsha
Maxton, John Skinner, Dennis
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Meale, Alan Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Merron, Gillian Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Milburn, Alan Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Miller, Andrew Snape, Peter
Mitchell, Austin Soley, Clive
Moffatt, Laura Southworth, Ms Helen
Moonie, Dr Lewis Spellar, John
Moran, Ms Margaret Squire, Ms Rachel
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) Stevenson, George
Morley, Elliot Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Stinchcombe, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) Stoate, Dr Howard
Mountford, Kali Stott, Roger
Mudie, George Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mullin, Chris Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Stringer, Graham
Naysmith, Dr Doug Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Stunell, Andrew
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Hara, Edward Swinney, John
Olner, Bill Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Öpik, Lembit
Organ, Mrs Diana Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pearson, Ian Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pendry, Tom Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Perham, Ms Linda Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pickthall, Colin Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter L Timms, Stephen
Plaskitt, James Tipping, Paddy
Pond, Chris Todd, Mark
Pope, Greg Touhig, Don
Pound, Stephen Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Paul Wigley, Dafydd
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) Willis, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton) Winnick, David
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tyler, Paul Wise, Audrey
Vaz, Keith Wood, Mike
Vis, Dr Rudi Wray, James
Wallace, James Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Ward, Ms Claire Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Watts, David Wyatt, Derek
Webb, Professor Steve
White, Brian Tellers for the Noes:
Whitehead, Dr Alan Mr. John McFall and
Wicks, Malcolm Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [this day].

Bill, not amended (in the Committee), and as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.