§ Mr. SwinneyI beg to move amendment No. 344, in page 30, line 32, leave out 'year of assessment' and insert
'complete year of assessment following the passing of this Act.'.
The ChairmanWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 370, in page 30, line 33, after 'individual', insert
'other than an unincorporated small business'.No. 336, in page 30, line 35, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 36 and insert'in which he has his principal United Kingdom home'.No. 337, in page 30, line 37, leave out 'who'.No. 338, in page 30, line 39, leave out
'has his closest connection with Scotland during that year'.No. 339, in page 30, leave out lines 42 to 44.No. 371, in page 31, line 6, leave out 'principal'.
No. 372, in page 31, line 6, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 7.
No. 340, in page 31, leave out lines 8 to 11.
No. 373, in page 31, line 8, leave out 'principal'.
No. 374, in page 31, line 10, leave out 'principal'.
No. 341, in page 31, leave out lines 12 to 17.
No. 376, in page 31, leave out lines 13 and 14.
No. 343, in page 31, line 17, at end insert-
'(c) an individual whose principal home is not in Scotland, but whose work shift patterns require him to be habitually working through the night in Scotland, shall not be deemed to have spent a day or days in Scotland for the purposes of this section.'.92 No. 377, in page 31, line 18, leave out 'principal'.No. 378, in page 31, leave out lines 21 to 24.
No. 342, in page 31, line 24, at end insert—
'(5A) In subsection 5(b) above, "main place of residence" in relation to an individual is defined as being the place which is his habitual or family abode, his permanent home, or the residence with which he has the closest personal or economic relations.(5B) In determining any issue arising from the definition of an individual's main place of residence, reference shall be made by the Board or by any court or tribunal to the OECD model double taxation treaty.'.No. 379, in page 31, leave out lines 25 and 26.No. 414, in page 31, line 26, at end insert 'but excludes an oil rig'.
§ Mr. SwinneyI notice that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and his hon. Friends support amendment No. 341. As a member of a minority party in this place, but not a minority party in Scotland, I am always grateful for support, but the right hon. Gentleman can speak to that amendment for himself.
I heard over the weekend that the Secretary of State for Scotland is worried that some people may want to destabilise the Scottish Parliament. I also have concerns that the Parliament may be destabilised, not by forces from within my party, because we want the Parliament to succeed, but by the Government not taking full and genuine account of the real difficulties that the legislation will create. Our amendments in this group are designed to strengthen the Parliament by creating a clear and uncomplicated base on which it can found its actions.
The clause and the amendments seek to define who should pay any different rate of taxation that is applied by the Scottish Parliament. The Government propose that those who are resident in the UK for tax purposes and have their closest connections to Scotland should pay any different taxation that is levied by the Scottish Parliament. To define that closest connection, the Government propose to establish a days test that sets out to determine how many days a person spends in Scotland. If he spends more days in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, he will be eligible to pay any different rate of tax.
In addition, the Government rightly propose that Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament, Scottish Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament will also have to pay. It might be worth trying to add to the net Members of this Parliament who speak repeatedly on Scottish matters. By that device, Scotland might at least receive some modest compensation for some of the things that are said by the right hon. Member for Devizes and his hon. Friends.
My concern with the Government's proposals is that they are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is difficult to work out exactly why they are taking the steps that are set out in the clause. I assume that they are trying to create a clear mechanism that can withstand attack either politically or by tax avoidance. The Government are prepared to countenance different tax regimes in the United Kingdom and should bear in mind the fact that there is likely to be uncertainty about who pays.
That is nothing new. Each year, band D council tax payers in the village of Meigle in my constituency pay £730 in council tax to Perth and Kinross council. A couple of miles along the road, band D council tax payers in the first farm cottages in the Angus part of my constituency 93 pay £670 in council tax. I do not detect many of my constituents contemplating moving that short distance to be relieved of a higher band D council tax, and the Government are perfectly happy to have a situation where different council tax rates are part of the fabric of decision making in the UK.
§ Mr. WallaceIs the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that some of his constituents in Perth and Kinross have not moved into Angus to set up a pub, on the same basis as people seem to be teeming into the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)?
§ Mr. SwinneyIn the tradition of hon. Members representing North Tayside, I do not spend much time in pubs, so I cannot substantiate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I shall certainly devote considerable time to finding out whether there is any demand.
The Government may be trying to create a mechanism by which any leakage of taxation due to the Scottish Parliament is obstructed. I suspect that they are trying to put obstacles in the way of individuals who move home from south Scotland to north England to avoid any additional taxation that is levied in Scotland, where they continue to be in employment. If so—I should be interested in the Minister's argument about the Government's motivation—the Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The maximum additional tax burden that is envisaged under clause 69 is £660 per person in each tax year of assessment. Conveyancing, transportation and refurbishment costs of moving from Scotland to England to avoid any additional tax burden seem fairly excessive when placed alongside a maximum additional tax burden of £660. The number of cases—this is an absolutely fundamental point—to which the exercise of tabulating the days spent here and there will be relevant, will be utterly insignificant, but I fear that, in setting the legislation off in that direction, the Government will place a substantial burden on many, if not all, businesses and individuals, who will be asked to establish for themselves the means, methods and, inevitably, costs of proving that they are, or are not, affected by the test.
A very small number of people are likely to be affected, but I suspect that, invariably, all potential Scottish taxpayers will have to have sufficient information and documentation to prove whether they are eligible for the test. I therefore hope that the Government will think again about the provision and accept that there is a simpler way in which to define who should be in the Scottish Parliament's tax net.
The amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friends and me are designed to change the test on whether an individual is liable to pay any additional taxation, based on the individual's principal UK residence. We aim to make the test fairly easy to undertake. We have included in our amendments, specifically in amendment No. 342, the characteristics of the definition that could be formulated. We suggest that terminology such as
habitual or family abode, his permanent home or the residence with which he has the closest personal or economic relationswould be of benefit in establishing the rules that lay down the meaning of principal UK residence.94 Amendment No. 342 also refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development model double taxation treaty. That reference is designed to give the authorities that are responsible for determining the collection of any tax that is separately set by the Scottish Parliament appropriate guidance on definitions and when they have to seek alternative opinions on whether individual cases comply with the legislation's definitions. In that respect, I should fully accept it if the Government wished to take away the amendments, to reflect on their contents and to discuss them more widely with the industry to arrive at an absolutely watertight definition, but our amendments try to reach the best possible definition.
One of the problems with the Government's proposal of "closest economic connection" is that it is a new tax term which has no established standing in the body of tax law. Having worked my way through many of those definitions during a previous life with Scottish Amicable and having ploughed through the double taxation treaties between the UK and various European states, I am thoroughly of the opinion that we do not need any new tax terms to add to the litany of others in policy and guidance.
On amendment No. 343, in the event that the Minister is not persuaded by my arguments about removing the days test, I raise one particular anomaly that must be addressed by the Government. According to the definitions in the Bill, an individual who lives in Carlisle but who works in Dumfries—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) in the Chamber—will not be eligible to pay any additional taxation in Scotland because he or she will be deemed not to have spent a day in Scotland, according to the rules of the Bill.
According to my understanding of the clause, that analysis is okay so long as the person is a day-shift worker. If the person is a night-shift worker, he or she will start and finish the day in Scotland and, according to the rules, will be eligible to pay additional taxation, if it is levied. I am sure that the Minister will ask me to give the number of cases to which I refer, along with an explanation of the number of publicans in Scotland who are planning to reside in Westmorland, but I do not have an answer. However, I respectfully ask the Minister if he has an answer to my question: how many people will be in the net of the days test?
Amendment No. 343 would expressly deal with the anomaly that I have raised. It may not seem like a big issue, but I doubt whether it is of any less significance than the scope of the days test that has been constructed by the Government as a unique part of this legislation.
I hope that the Minister will thoroughly address the issues that I have raised and which will, I am sure, be raised by others. In doing so, will he specifically set out the position of offshore workers in relation to the days test? I simply cannot work out the answer to that point.
There is a danger that the Government, in their zeal to close loopholes, to answer every dilemma, understandably, to knock back every pedantic Conservative attack on their Bill and to ensure that they have thought of everything, pass into law some points that have the sniff of complexity and bureaucracy around them. This clause is an example of that. I hope that the Government will recognise that the amendments have been tabled to assist in addressing practical difficulties in implementing the Bill. They are designed to try to 95 minimise needless bureaucracy that will be faced by individuals or businesses in trying to comply with the Government's tests. The amendments have been tabled to strengthen and to clarify the legislation and I hope that the Government are able to respond to them in that way.
§ Mr. DalyellThe hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and his Scottish National party colleagues have done the Committee and the discussion of the Bill a service by tabling these important amendments on the tax net. Following up immediately his point about the North sea, I shall ask a direct question. What about the person who works on an oil rig? Will the North sea be considered, in terms of clause 111, as "adjacent to Scotland"? There is a legal problem here, and perhaps tonight would be the time to clarify it.
What is the position of a Scottish soldier who has married quarters, let us say, in Arbroath but who served six months in Northern Ireland and three months in Catterick, Pirbright or somewhere else in England? What are the implications for him in terms of tax-raising powers? The whole issue of service men, who, by the very nature of their job, move around, has to be clarified.
There is the question of holidays. If a person takes his or her holidays abroad in the first part of the year, that could make that person into a Scottish rather than a UK taxpayer, if there is no principal home in England. It may seem that I am being pedantic about all this, but may I refer the House to my question to a former Prime Minister? I asked him to
ensure that legislation presented to this House is not drafted in obscure language.He replied:I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's objective. However, I am afraid that, in order to achieve precision in legislation which is complex and often technical, it is not always possible to avoid an impression of obscurity.To which I replied:I accept the fact that the Parliamentary draftsmen must try to prevent those who would pretend to misunderstand from doing so, but is it not also important that we laity should understand legislation?The Prime Minister—Harold Macmillan—gave a classic and well-remembered reply, which gave me my comeuppance:I know that this is a difficult problem. I would remind the House of the very wise words of Sir James Stephen, one of our greatest authorities, who pointed out that since legislation is often the subject of litigation it is absolutely necessary not only that it should appear to be simple to those who read it in good faith, but actually precise. That is a very difficult art. Many things are simple. Let us take the sentence: 'When John met his uncle in the street he took off his hat.' That is a clear sentence, but it is capable of at least six different meanings.Those were the days when Prime Minister's questions were heard in total silence. He continued:The point about legislation is that the courts have to interpret it in litigation based upon it, and it is therefore essential that it should be not so much simple as precise.I think that that is the difficulty with clause 71.96 8 pm
My friend—and he really was my friend—the late Brian O'Malley followed up my question with a question on the explanatory memorandum to a Finance Bill. The Prime Minister replied:
I have every sympathy with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman. I think that Finance Bills dealing with a large number of subjects and sometimes fairly simple provisions seem very complicated. What we tried to do in 1962, where there was a fairly complicated provision, was to issue a special White Paper to explain that particular part. Other Finance Bills are fairly simple and involve the raising or reduction of the Income Tax or something of the kind. Therefore, I take account of what the hon. Member says.So it went on, with a final question from the then shadow Chancellor, James Callaghan:Has the Prime Minister looked at the Finance Bill this year to see that it took us nearly 20 Clauses and seven Schedules to get rid of Schedule A? Would not that have been a very appropriate subject for an explanatory memorandum?"—[Official Report, 4 July 1963; Vol. 680, c. 583‒85.]The reason I have gone into such detail is that things have not altered all that much. We must take into account the fact that lawyers will try to extract every single penny possible from legislation. My fear is that the interaction between Holyrood and Westminster will be a lawyers' paradise.I want to ask the Minister about the briefing that his advisers will have had from the Law Society. It states:
With regard to Clause 71(1) the present position for UK tax is that strictly an individual should be taxed in the UK on the whole income of a year of assessment although only present in the UK for part of the year but under Extra Statutory Concession (A11) such a person is only taxed on income for the part of the year during which he is actually resident in the UK. There is, however, no provision for splitting the tax year in the Bill and it is submitted that this would be helpful since, without such a provision, for example, it appears necessary for an English employer of a Scot moving to England, say, in the second half of the tax year to operate PAYE at the Scottish basic rate for the whole year or if moved from England to Scotland after 1 month of the tax year would have to collect the Scots tax on English earnings of that month.That may seem very dry, but in reality it is basic and very important. The Scottish Office has had notice of the matter from the Law Society and I expect some sort of response this evening.The briefing continues:
In respect of Clause 71(2)(b) it is suggested that time spent in Scotland alone is not a sufficient test if someone has his or her principal residence in other parts of the UK. For example, if a tax payer, having his own principal residence in England, but living in the Borders with family a few miles away, but across the Border, visits Scotland each weekend, arriving Friday and departing early Monday, and all public holidays and annual leave were spent in Scotland it might only require a fairly short additional period (say, 15 weeks) of work, perhaps as a Sales Representative or otherwise in Scotland to be subject to Scottish tax and vice versa in reverse for Scottish residents. It is suggested that there could be a number of people in this situation, e.g. professional sportsmen, particularly in the Borders area. who might, somewhat inadvertently, find themselves subject to Scottish tax and might not realise that were the case, which could have penalty consequences under the Self Assessment regime.Those matters are nuts and bolts, but they are not unusual nuts and bolts; they are practical.The briefing continued:
In relation to Clause 71(2)(b) and (3), Inland Revenue leaflet (IR20) states that a visitor to the UK is treated as resident in the UK if physically present in the UK for 183 days of any tax year. The 97 result of Clause 71(2)(b) and 71(3) could be that a foreign visitor might be subject to Scottish tax if in Scotland for only 92 days out of that 183 test period, whereas a permanent resident of another part of the UK coming to Scotland would have to spend 183 days in Scotland before being subject to Scottish tax.It is suggested, therefore, that the definition of 'Scottish tax payer' should exclude persons ordinarily resident abroad unless in Scotland for 183 days to prevent foreign visitors being discriminated against.Do the Government accept the Law Society's view? If not, why not?I have spoken at length to both the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The ICA says:
Clause 71(1) indicates the requirements to be met by a 'Scottish taxpayer' and hence who is liable to pay the Scots income tax. This is based upon the test of 'residence' which is a recognised test in deciding whether an individual has a liability to UK income tax. If the test of residence is met, a taxpayer will be liable to Scots income tax throughout the fiscal year. However, if a 'Scottish taxpayer' moves permanently to, say, Wales in October should his new Welsh employer be required to withhold Scottish tax under PAYE?The ICA thinks not. It recommends thatthe existing Extra Statutory Concession A11 should be included in the law to ensure that a person is only taxed on income for the part of the year during which he is actually resident in Scotland.What do the Government say about that?The ICA continues:
Although it may be simpler to apply the 'Scottish taxpayer' test of residence for a whole fiscal year, it will add to the complexities of PAYE for those who move to other regions. To this end we trust that proposed guidance on the operation of an 'S' code for PAYE will be issued at an early stage for consultation with employers and other interested parties.As a matter of interest in 71(1)(a) is 'an individual who … is treated as resident in the UK' the same as an individual who is actually resident? We do not think so.I want to know what the Government think. This will be a matter for litigation; it will be a field day for lawyers unless the issue is clarified.On clause 71(3)(b), the ICA says:
One test in defining residence in clause 71 is whether an individual has his 'principal UK home' located in Scotland. This does not fit particularly well with the capital gains tax definition of principal or main residence.People who are subject to capital gains tax legislation can afford very good tax lawyers. Tax lawyers will make a meal of the provisions unless they are cleared up.
§ Mr. WallaceDoes the hon. Gentleman think that people will engage tax lawyers to make a meal for, at most, £660 a year?
§ Mr. DalyellFrom my experience of Finance Bills, what tax lawyers and their lobbies can do is amazing. I am a relative layman in such matters, but I have experience of several Finance Bills. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has served on Finance Bill Committees.
§ Mr. WallaceI have.
§ Mr. DalyellThen the hon. and learned Gentlemen must know what difficulties can be raised.
The ICA brief continues: 98
Equally clause 71(4)(a) uses a test for an individual's day of presence which is not the same as that used for a UK test of residence and other related tests. The UK test is whether one is present at midnight whereas this test would treat one nonetheless as being present in Scotland. For example, if a person takes a morning flight to Brussels and stays there for two nights, then returning to Scotland using this test the person is out of Scotland for 1 day but in terms of s. 193 ICTA 1988 out of the UK for 2 days.How are definitions to be made the same as those used in tax legislation to prevent unnecessary disputes?The final point covered by the ICA brief is appeals. It says:
Under the existing residence rules questions about a taxpayer's status can frequently take considerable time and expertise to negotiate. This involves both the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer in a relatively expensive process. To ensure as efficient a process as possible, particularly when only 3 per cent. of some income is at stake, we trust the Inland Revenue will establish a central processing unit at, for example, FICO Scotland.Those are all seemingly dry details. They amount to what some of us have called the dewiring of the United Kingdom. During the debates on Welsh devolution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has repeatedly talked of the unbundling of the United Kingdom. They are the difficult issues that have to be dealt with. They may seem dry, but they are very important and will be the source of endless litigation and trouble if we do not sort them out.
§ Mr. AncramThe details that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has referred to may sound dry, but they are vital. He revisited a kinder, gentler time in the House of Commons when questions were answered and debate was real. If he is looking for a lack of obscurity in legislation after 34 years, I fear that he will have to wait a lot longer.
The points that the hon. Gentleman has made are important because the arguments about whether someone is liable to pay tax are centred not on how many people will pay but on whether it is fair that they should pay. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked whether anyone would go to a tax lawyer over a sum as small as £630 or so. That is an extraordinary suggestion. We cannot decide whether someone is being rightly or wrongly taxed on the amount that they are being asked to pay. That is the Leona Helmsley line—only the little people pay taxes.
The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said that he thought that we support one of his amendments. He may find that we are supporting part of his amendment. We are not on all fours with him. I have also found that the amendment paper describes me as a doctor in some places. I assure the Committee that I have not taken medical qualifications. I leave that expertise to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
The hon. Members for Linlithgow and for North Tayside have rightly pointed out that the issues that we are debating will determine whether the system of taxation will work fairly. We talked earlier about the complexities of collection. We must have a clear definition of who pays. There must be no areas of doubt or confusion. I have told the Minister of my disappointment at his knocking back of every amendment. I hope that he can cast aside his prejudice on these amendments and think seriously about the impact on the Bill of leaving the confusion that exists at the moment.
99 8.15 pm
Amendment No. 370 is slightly different from the other Conservative amendments in the group. It would prevent businesses in Scotland from facing a different tax regime from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the clear aim of the White Paper. If I have read the complicated Inland Revenue paper lodged in the Library this afternoon correctly, it confirms the impression given in the Bill that unincorporated small businesses would be liable to pay any additional tax raised by the Parliament. The Inland Revenue paper refers to partnerships in particular. Sole traders and partnerships appear to receive different treatment from incorporated businesses. It cannot be fair that payment of the tax depends on whether a trader is incorporated. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment carefully and will be able to accept it in principle. I am always prepared to accept that my drafting may not be perfect, but I should be delighted if he is able to promise serious consideration of it.
We run into difficulties with the definitions of the terms used in the Bill. Phrases in clause 1 such as "principal home", "places of residence" and "main place of residence" have not been used before in United Kingdom income tax legislation. A recent paper by Deloitte and Touche confirmed that. There are uncertainties about definitions. We can all pull out examples. Under the Bill, an employee of a Scottish company who owned a house in Edinburgh but was seconded to London for one year, where he stayed in a rented flat, would presumably be considered a Scottish taxpayer because his principal home was in Edinburgh, even though he performed no duties of employment in Scotland during that period. That immediately raises a substantial question about fairness and the grounds for taxation. I hope that the Minister will look closely at the terms.
Amendments Nos. 371, 373, 374, 377, 372 and 378 are probing amendments. We are trying to find out what is meant by the terms, to understand how the tax will impact on individuals. I hope that the Minister will explain why new terminology has been sought. If ever there has been a field day for lawyers, it is when legislation uses new terms of which there are no definitions in existing law. I suspect that lawyers are rubbing their hands in anticipation and planning their holidays in exotic parts of the world as a result of the work that will stem from the Bill.
Let us consider the example of a Scot whose family home is in Scotland but who is transferred to the London office of his company. Not wanting to move his family south, he spends his weekends in Scotland. Those of us who travel on the aeroplane see such people flying down to London on a Monday morning and returning on a Friday evening. Under the Bill, the Monday and the Friday will be counted as days in Scotland, even though the man is working in London on those days. He will be deemed to have spent four of the seven days of the week in Scotland, even though he spent five days of the week working in London. Even though his work is entirely outside Scotland, he will be liable to pay Scottish tax. Amendment No. 376 is an attempt to deal with what we regard as a patently unfair situation.
§ Mr. SwinneyThe right hon. Gentleman is citing a number of examples of what could loosely be characterised as a fancy life style, which involves flying to London every week. Construction workers, for example, 100 might live in the north of England and travel to work every week on a site in Glasgow or on the A74, if it is ever improved. They would be liable for the Scottish tax if they worked there for a prolonged period.
§ Mr. AncramI take the hon. Gentleman's point. If they were working on a construction site in Lanarkshire but travelling home to England every night, they would not pay unless they were working the night shift, in which case they would.
§ Mr. SwinneyBut if they were living in digs?
§ Mr. AncramThat is the sort of anomaly that arises, and it is important to highlight such examples. These cases may not be many, but the Minister would surely want to prevent even one case of the tax being wrongly or unfairly levied.
I do not travel to Scotland as often as I used to when I was a Scottish Member of Parliament—I sometimes used to go up two or three times a week—but I came down on an early morning flight today. It was packed with people coming to earn their living in London during the week who will travel back on Friday evening. Although they spend five days of the week in London, they will be deemed to be resident in Scotland and as having spent four out of seven days there. That seems to defy logic, and I hope that the Minister will consider the problem.
Let us consider the issue of multiple presence. The Deloitte and Touche paper produced two examples in this regard, both of which are relevant. The first related to someone who had a home in England but spent 121 days in Scotland, 121 days in England and 123 days in France. Such a person would be liable to Scottish tax because he would be a UK resident and would have spent as much time in Scotland as in another part of the United Kingdom, although he had in fact spent 244 days outside Scotland. Again, that seems to create extraordinary anomalies.
The second example is perhaps even more graphic. It involves someone who lives in Glasgow and has a house there for 180 days of the tax year. He then moves to London where he lives for the rest of the tax year. He will not be liable to Scottish tax because his period of residence in England exceeds that in Scotland. However, if instead of moving to London he moves to France, he will be liable for Scottish tax because the number of days spent in Scotland will exceed the days spent elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is an enormous anomaly for which there is no logical explanation.
The hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned day and night shifts and movements across the border. As I understand it, it is common in Europe to have special rules for cross-border workers, yet there is nothing in the Bill to provide for that. I hope that the Minister will consider the point. We believe that the amendment would solve the problem.
§ Mr. WallaceThe right hon. Gentleman is making some important points, and it is important to tease out some answers. He cited the example of someone who moves to France rather than London. If that person has spent only 180 days in the UK, would he be treated as a UK taxpayer at all in that year? If not, the question of paying Scottish taxation would surely not arise.
§ Mr. AncramI am not a tax expert, which is why I said the amendments were probing. I cannot answer the 101 hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is an interesting question because there might perhaps be a conflict between the Bill and the usual tax rules. It is important to avoid that conflict if we are to avoid the complications to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow referred. I appreciate that no legislation is ever perfect—if it were, there would be no lawyers—but it is important to examine such patent anomalies.
Deloitte and Touche also point out that, for overseas workers who are brought into Scotland, the tax may result in considerable extra costs for inward investment companies because those workers are paid on a net pay basis. In other words, a Japanese worker who has a certain net pay after tax in Japan will be guaranteed the same net pay after tax in the United Kingdom. The Japanese company will therefore pay him sufficient gross pay in the United Kingdom to result in the desired net pay after taxes. Were Scotland to have an additional 3p on the basic rate, the gross pay would have to be higher than in England to arrive at the same net amount.
As we know, Scotland is always looking for inward investment and I suggest that the cost to a major new investor bringing in, say, 40 Japanese workers paid on average £25,000 a year could be as much as £40,000. That might he taken into consideration if an inward investment decision were in the balance.
§ Mr. SwinneyI have studied very closely the material from Deloitte and Touche; I thought that that example was rather weak. I accept that choices will be made at the margin but, in the great scheme of an inward investment decision, £40,000 as the difference between one bid and another will probably not be a major factor.
§ Mr. AncramThe hon. Gentleman may be right. It may not be a major factor, but with bids from various parts of the United Kingdom for inward investment becoming increasingly competitive, if £40,000 were the difference, I suspect that it could tip the balance. These matters have to be considered. It is terribly important that we do not pass clause 71 without consideration. When I said at the beginning of today's proceedings that I find this part of the Bill confusing and obscure, I was in large part referring to this clause. It is important that we try to cast some light on it, which is the purpose of the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 379 and 414 refer to employees and passengers on oil rigs and ships and trains. Under clause 71(6), offshore workers on oil rigs, fishing boats and other things will still be liable to pay the tax. Clause 111(1) defines Scotland as including
so much of the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland".The hon. Member for Linlithgow also made this point. None of us know—at least I do not know—what is meant by "adjacent". Perhaps the Minister will tell us, because it will be crucial to any assessment of whether an oil rig worker or someone who is a passenger on or working on a ship is liable for the tax. It may be a question of a line very carefully drawn somewhere in the North sea.In the old days of international law, I seem to remember talking about how to draw international boundaries; taking a point from one side of the border to the other and continuing it across the water. Hon. Members who represent Aberdeen—I see at least one here—were, 102 at least in those days, very interested in where such lines were drawn. Now, however, one's eligibility for tax may depend on something as esoteric as that.
If amendments Nos. 379 and 414 were accepted, they would remove ship and oil rig workers from the tax provision. Indeed, amendment No. 414 deliberately excludes an oil rig in order to achieve that. For many people who work on oil rigs, their only connection with Scotland is flying through Aberdeen airport on their way to the platform, and they could well be coming from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The final example that I want to cite highlights the difficulties caused by clause 71. There is a problem in defining what constitutes being in Scotland if one is on a lorry, bus or train. Those of us who occasionally travel on the sleeper know that it leaves Edinburgh at 11.55 pm. Passengers will certainly be liable for tax on the day they board the train, because they will be regarded as having been in Scotland that day, but, under clause 71, I think that they will also be liable for the following day—the train will have left only five minutes before midnight and, for at least 25 minutes afterwards it will be travelling through Scotland on its way to London. Someone who gets on the night train may find that for the day he gets on the train and for the next day he is counted as being in Scotland although he is on the sleeper and is going to work in London.
If the Committee thinks that that is difficult, let us consider the case of the late-night lorry driver who starts his journey from Scotland to the south before midnight. Is he liable for the following day if his vehicle is still in Scotland?
§ Mr. SwinneyOn a point of order, Mr. Lord. I do not want to interrupt the interesting flow of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but many substantial issues have been raised to which I certainly would appreciate answers from the Minister. I wonder whether we shall have an appropriate opportunity to hear those answers.
§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)It is for the right hon. Gentleman himself to decide what are and what are not substantial issues.
§ Mr. AncramThe hon. Gentleman spoke for quite some time at the beginning of the debate and he has just taken a little bit more. I am sure that the Minister realises that these are not just serious issues, but real ones which will arise in future if the Bill is not amended. When they do, they will cause a great deal of consternation and, if we are not careful, there will be much derision about the way in which the system works. We have a genuine chance to clean up the Bill, get it right and make the tax work, so I ask the Minister to examine our amendments closely.
§ Mr. WallaceI echo the point that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has just made; it is important that there is as much clarification as possible of who will be liable to tax. However, he may have misinterpreted what I said. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) created a vision of the courts regularly being filled with huge, expensive litigation. 103 I did not suggest that that would be the case in respect of individual taxpayers, although that is not to say that it is not an important issue for the individual taxpayers concerned—and there should be as much clarity as possible.
I shall not elaborate on points that have already been raised, but I plead with the Minister to respond positively to the debate and to indicate his willingness to go away and think again about certain points. The one that I would emphasise is that the same test of residence should apply to Scotland as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I understand that the test of residence in the United Kingdom is whether one is present at midnight. That may not be the case in respect of the Bill. As in the example mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, someone taking a morning flight to Brussels and staying away for two nights before returning to Scotland would be out of Scotland for one day under the Bill, but out of the United Kingdom for two days in terms of United Kingdom tax legislation. That anomaly will give the tax powers in the Bill a bad name. It is important for those of us who want the tax powers that there is as much clarity as possible.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthI rise briefly to address one of the issues that has given rise to the huge complexities that will result from the Bill. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) has done the Committee a service by trying to expose some of the issues, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
I should like to pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in respect of service men, as I represent the home of the British Army at Aldershot and quite a large number of Scots serve in the British Army in various parts of England. The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised an important point about the time that they might spend either at home in Scotland or on duty there. I hope the Minister will address that in his reply to the debate. I shall not trespass too much on his time so that he can answer the detailed questions that have been raised.
Clause 71 raises some important points of law. It will be a lawyers' paradise and there is a grave risk that lawyers will play it off against sections in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. That will create considerable difficulty for the Inland Revenue and it will certainly add to the costs that the Bill will impose on the body of taxpayers. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about which law will prevail if there is a conflict and how the courts and judges will interpret between the Bill and that other body of law which already deals with Inland Revenue issues and residence location for tax purposes.
Finally, I return to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes made about the train departing at 11.55 pm. That provision could also affect airline pilots who are often required to work away from home. Given that it is a particular feature of the clause that one is caught at the beginning or the end of the day—rather than at a specified hour, such as midnight—the airlines could also be affected. For instance, a shuttle pilot on the route between Heathrow and Edinburgh or Glasgow could find himself spending quite a lot of time in Scotland although his principal residence might be in England. The opposite 104 could also arise. There should be some consistency, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up some of the points that have been raised by Members on both sides of the Committee.
§ Mr. McLeishIn the 10 minutes that remain, I shall attempt to respond to some of the points that have been raised in an important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked a number of specific questions. He referred to the Law Society. The Scottish Office and Inland Revenue officials have had a number of useful meetings with the Law Society at which all the main points raised by hon. Members were covered, in most cases satisfactorily.
Professional sportsmen have been mentioned. The example seems a bit far-fetched in my judgment, but in the circumstances described the individual would be a Scottish taxpayer. As far as possible, taxpayers will be informed of their status by the Inland Revenue.
Service men with married quarters—and, possibly, a principal home—in Scotland, who spend six months in Northern Ireland and three months in England might be liable to pay tax on the "principal home" test, depending on the circumstances. However, we are aware of the particular circumstances of military personnel and I am discussing the issues with colleagues.
The point about splitting tax years was addressed when we discussed amendment No. 357. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also raised the question of the North sea adjacent to Scotland as described in clause 111. Clause 111 confines the boundaries of Scotland for purposes of the Bill to the
internal waters or territorial sea … adjacent to Scotland.Much of the North sea is outside the 12-mile limit and is not adjacent to Scotland. Further to that, the Government plan to make available to hon. Members during the passage of the Bill a working draft order defining Scottish adjacent waters under clause 111.
§ Mr. DalyellWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. McLeishNo. I have very little time in which to respond.
Chartered accountants' comments about individuals being treated as United Kingdom residents under clause 71(1) have been mentioned. We are quite certain that it means the same thing in that context.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned the example of the business man who flies to London on Monday morning and returns to Scotland on Friday. Such an individual would be a Scottish taxpayer as his family home is in Scotland. The number of days test would not apply.
The substantive amendments relate to the critical issue of who should be liable to pay tax at the varied rate proposed by the Scottish Parliament. Before I deal with them, I should say that the long experience of the Inland Revenue in income tax matters dating back to 1849 has proved invaluable in terms of negotiating us through particularly tricky policy issues.
Drawing up tax proposals is seldom, if ever, a simple matter. Judgments have to be exercised, weighing up and balancing issues of fairness, workability, scope for avoidance, cost of administration and, of course, tax take. 105 Those judgments have to be informed by in-depth experience and I remain convinced that the Government's conclusions, properly informed by the Inland Revenue, stand up to scrutiny.
Amendment No. 344 aims to link the definition of who will be a Scottish taxpayer to a complete year of assessment and to have it apply only for the tax year 1999–2000—the first full year of the Bill being enacted—and beyond. The amendment is unnecessary on both counts because clause 71 already relates the definition of who will be a Scottish taxpayer to whole tax years and because clause 70(6) makes it clear that the tax-varying power will not be available for use before the tax year 2000‒01.
Amendment No. 370 would appear to be trying to exclude small, unincorporated businesses from the definition of Scottish taxpayers. I do not think that it succeeds, but, in any case, I am not persuaded that unincorporated businesses should be exempt from the tax-varying power. They do, after all, pay income tax at present and, since the maximum extra tax any individual will pay is £660, exercise of the tax-varying power will not damage small businesses. There is no reason why the self-employed and partnerships should not pay their fair share if others pay income tax in Scotland. They will benefit from exactly the same services provided by the Parliament as employees and other Scottish taxpayers.
Amendments Nos. 336 to 339 and 341 are all aimed at deleting the test whereby a UK resident would be a Scottish taxpayer if he or she spent at least half the tax year in Scotland. There has been a fair amount of comment about the test recently—not all of it, by any means, well informed. We have looked carefully at the test and concluded that it fully meets the requirements of fairness, practicability and cost effectiveness.
Taking into account time spent in Scotland is a fair way of ensuring that all those who might benefit from what the Scottish Parliament has to offer—including how it applies the proceeds of a resolution that increases the basic rate of income tax—should pay the appropriate share of the tax. It is only right that those who spend most of their time in Scotland should therefore pay at the Scottish rate.
§ Mr. SwinneyWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. McLeishI am reluctant to give way, partly because I want to address some of the important amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman.
A test based on days spent in Scotland is consistent with tests of residence for UK tax purposes generally. I accept that the test involves decisions about where precisely its boundaries should lie—all residence-based tests do—but most of the examples I have seen quoted, in the Deloitte and Touche paper and elsewhere, are quite clear cut. The clause as drafted already gives the most equitable and practical solution in those cases and I would not wish to change it.
Treating someone as spending a day in Scotland if they are there at the beginning or the end of the day is a necessarily strict test to deter avoidance. The transaction costs of avoidance in the "within UK" context are relatively low and have to be guarded against. Better that than a test with glaring loopholes.
106 I should stress that there will be no extra costs for employers in operating the "days spent" test. No employer will deduct tax at the Scottish rate unless the Inland Revenue tells them to. As is usual, the onus will be on the taxpayer to get his tax affairs right. That again is consistent with other tax law, including UK residence rules. The costs for the Inland Revenue of ensuring compliance with the rules have been taken into account. The number of taxpayers likely to be caught solely by that test is thought to be relatively small.
Amendments Nos. 371 to 374, 377 and 378 would, when taken together, mean that a person would be a Scottish taxpayer if he had his UK home in Scotland, regardless of whether he lived there at all. Amendment No. 378 would remove the provision that decides which property, if a person has two or more homes, should be regarded as the person's residence for the purposes of the Scottish tax. That could mean that anyone with a place of residence in Scotland, such as a holiday home, could be a Scottish taxpayer.
I hesitate to suggest it, but it smacks uncomfortably of an attempt by the Conservative party to reintroduce by the back door the poll tax on holiday homes—a matter in which the right hon. Member for Devizes is well versed. I am not prepared to countenance that. In practice, however, there must be sensible rules to deal with individuals who have homes in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. It would not be fair that everyone who had a place of residence in Scotland should automatically be a Scottish taxpayer.
Amendment No. 340 would widen significantly the "principal home" criterion whereby a person could be adjudged to be a Scottish taxpayer. Although I understand that the amendment is linked to the SNP's concern to remove the criterion of "days spent in Scotland" from the Bill, it would in practice create bizarre and unfair effects, and should be resisted. The effect of the amendment can best be illustrated by an example. If the amendment were accepted, a person moving with his family to Scotland on the very last day of a tax year, 5 April, would be adjudged to be a Scottish taxpayer for the whole of that year on the basis of the test at clause 71(3)(a) and (b), because he would have spent part of the year—one day—in Scotland and, for at least part of that year, his principal UK residence would have been in Scotland.
Amendment No. 343 picks up a point raised in the paper published by Deloitte and Touche about the potential liability for the Scottish tax of cross-border night shift workers. That situation was one we had identified when drawing up the proposals, but we reluctantly concluded that the balance of advantage lay with living with it rather than with trying to resolve what may in practice be a non-problem. I shall briefly explain why.
A night shift worker living in England but working in Scotland could become liable for the Scottish tax if he or she clocked up, under the "days spent in Scotland" rule, at least 183 days in Scotland. We have, however, to put that point into some sort of context: we are talking about a very small number of people who commute daily between England and Scotland; very few of these few daily commuters will be night shift workers; and very few night shift workers will spend 183 days, as defined in the Bill, in Scotland. Most night workers do not spend all their year working nights and most have significant time off which, when added to holidays, means that they would fall below the 183 day limit.
107 I accept that that is not a reason to leave matters as they stand.
§ Mr. SwinneyWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. McLeishI want to come to the specific point. The question of night shift workers is extraordinarily difficult, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Inland Revenue continues to work on this specific point. We want to discover the extent of the problem as it exists in reality and to find out whether there is a problem to be addressed. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the matter will be examined.
§ Mr. SwinneyThe Minister has said that it is likely that the number of people who will fall into the "days spent" category will be small, but that contradicts his central argument. It is no answer to my amendment about night shift workers—I find his response inadequate.
§ Mr. McLeishIf one takes a specific group, large or small, and starts to look for potential anomalies in the system, one may find that there are knock-on consequences—
It being a quarter to Nine o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 307.
109| Division No. 176] | [8.45 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Keetch, Paul |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Brake, Tom | Öpik, Lembit |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Rendel, David |
| Breed, Colin | Salmond, Alex |
| Burnett, John | Sanders, Adrian |
| Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Stunell, Andrew | |
| Chidgey, David | Swinney, John |
| Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth) | Tyler, Paul |
| Wallace, James | |
| Dafis, Cynog | Welsh, Andrew |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Willis, Phil |
| Feam, Ronnie | |
| Hancock, Mike | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Harvey, Nick | Mr. Alasdair Morgan and |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Mr. Donald Gorrie. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) |
| Ainger, Nick | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Alexander, Douglas | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Benton, Joe |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Berry, Roger |
| Ashton, Joe | Betts, Clive |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Blizzard, Bob |
| Barnes, Harry | Blunkett, Rt Hon David |
| Barron, Kevin | Boateng, Paul |
| Bayley, Hugh | Borrow, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Galbraith, Sam |
| Browne, Desmond | Galloway, George |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Gapes, Mike |
| Burden, Richard | Gardiner, Barry |
| Burgon, Colin | Gerrard, Neil |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Byers, Stephen | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Caborn, Richard | Godsiff, Roger |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Goggins, Paul |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Campbell—Savours, Dale | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Caplin, Ivor | Grocott, Bruce |
| Casale, Roger | Grogan, John |
| Caton, Martin | Hain, Peter |
| Cawsey, Ian | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Chaytor, David | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Hanson, David |
| Clapham, Michael | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Healey, John |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Heppell, John |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hesford, Stephen |
| Clelland, David | Hill, Keith |
| Coaker, Vernon | Hinchliffe, David |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Coleman, Iain | Home Robertson, John |
| Colman, Tony | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Connarty, Michael | Hope, Phil |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Cooper, Yvette | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Corbett, Robin | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Cousins, Jim | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Crausby, David | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Hurst, Alan |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Hutton, John |
| Cummings, John | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland) | Ingram, Adam |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jenkins, Brian |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Darvill, Keith | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Davidson, Ian | Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Denham, John | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dewar, Rt Hon Donald | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Dobbin, Jim | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Doran, Frank | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Dowd, Jim | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Drew, David | Kidney, David |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Edwards, Huw | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Efford, Clive | Laxton, Bob |
| Ennis, Jeff | Lepper, David |
| Etherington, Bill | Leslie, Christopher |
| Fatchett, Derek | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Fisher, Mark | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Fitzsimons, Loma | Linton, Martin |
| Flint, Caroline | Livingstone, Ken |
| Flynn, Paul | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Follett, Barbara | Lock, David |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Love, Andrew |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | McAllion, John |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Foulkes, George | McCabe, Steve |
| Fyfe, Maria | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| McCartney, Ian (Makerfield) | Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) |
| McDonnell, John | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| McFall, John | Salter, Martin |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McLeish, Henry | Sawford, Phil |
| McNamara, Kevin | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McNulty, Tony | Shaw, Jonathan |
| McWalter, Tony | Sheerman, Barry |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Mandelson, Peter | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Singh, Marsha |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Marshall—Andrews, Robert | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Martlew, Eric | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Meacher, Rt Hon Michael | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Meale, Alan | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Merron, Gillian | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Michael, Alun | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Snape, Peter |
| Milburn, Alan | Soley, Clive |
| Miller, Andrew | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Mitchell, Austin | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Stevenson, George |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| 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 | Stringer, Graham |
| Mullin, Chris | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Olner, Bill | |
| O'Neill, Martin | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Pearson, Ian | Timms, Stephen |
| Pendry, Tom | Tipping, Paddy |
| Pike, Peter L | Todd, Mark |
| Plaskitt, James | Touhig, Don |
| Pollard, Kerry | Trickett, Jon |
| Pond, Chris | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Pope, Greg | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Pound, Stephen | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Wareing, Robert N |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Watts, David |
| Purchase, Ken | White, Brian |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Radice, Giles | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Rammell, Bill | |
| Raynsford, Nick | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Wills, Michael |
| Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S) | Winnick, David |
| Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) | |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Wood, Mike |
| Rogers, Allan | Wray, James |
| Rooker, Jeff | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Rooney, Terry | Wyatt, Derek |
| Rowlands, Ted | |
| Roy, Frank | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ruane, Chris | Mr. David Jamieson and |
| Ruddock, Ms Joan | Mr. Robert Ainsworth. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.