'.—For section 29 (2)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997 there shall be substituted—
"(b) to any part of the qualifying distribution which, were it not for section 469 (2) of the Taxes Act 1988, falls to be regarded as income of section 505 bodies.".'.—[Mr. Fallon.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.10.15 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 53, in clause 47, page 26, line 22, leave out '31st December 2000' and insert '31st March 2001'.
Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
Amendment No. 54, in page 27, line 44, leave out '31st December 2000' and insert '31st March 2001'.
§ Mr. Fallon
I begin, perversely, with the Government amendments, which we welcome. I acknowledge, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who raised the point in Committee, how far the Government have gone to extend the definition of what can be supplied in kind as medical equipment. My hon. Friend has another engagement, but he wanted me to convey his thanks to the Minister for meeting us on that point.
As for amendments Nos. 53 and 54, the Economic Secretary will recall our discussion in Committee on these points. Incidentally, I declare an interest, in that I am an 251 unremunerated director of a charity that may benefit from the amendments. The issue here was simple: the date at which this new and welcome extension of charitable relief was to begin was intended to allow for a two-and-three-quarter year period. It was proposed initially to bring it into operation on 1 April this year; its implementation has now been delayed until some time after Royal Assent. As the exemption is designed to end on 31 December 2000, charities have been given less than two and a half years. That also means that the exemption ends, rather uncomfortably, three quarters of the way through the tax year.
I suggested to the Minister in Committee that it might be helpful to let the exemption run on for the final three months—January, February and March of 2001. She kindly agreed to consider the matter, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
The purpose of new clause 16 is to help a different group of charities, such as the Thalidomide Trust, which are still disadvantaged by the withdrawal of tax credit relief for UK equity dividends. The withdrawal was in two stages: for pension funds and the like it was put into effect immediately, on the day of last July's Budget; but foreseeing the impact on charities, the Government allowed a breathing space until April 1999. A compensation scheme with a tapered relief for five years was also introduced.
The problem comes for those charities that invested in mixed funds. The Thalidomide Trust was one of the charities that invested in the Aquila funds. These were unit trusts specially created to facilitate efficient investment pooling for pension funds and their charity clients. That worked well because both types of client were entitled to the same tax exemption.
Before investing in those funds, the Thalidomide Trust checked very carefully with the Inland Revenue. On 16 December 1996, it was told thatthe proposed investment in Aquila Funds would be accepted as 'qualifying' forthe exemption. However, as a result of the subsequent July Budget, the pension fund lost relief; charities whose investment was pooled with it lost the relief at the same time—a relief to which they would otherwise have been fully entitled.
You may wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why we raise the matter almost a year after the deed was done. We do so because, on 22 June 1998, the Thalidomide Trust wrote to us, having had little joy from the Government. On 21 January 1998, the charity wrote to the Revenue; it wrote again on 30 March, and then it wrote to the Chancellor. Receiving no satisfaction, it wrote to us.
We took up the matter immediately. I raised it with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at Question Time last Thursday, 25 June. My hon. Friends will now understand why the Financial Secretary has left the Chamber; they will recall that, when I raised the matter, she advised us not to make "cheap points". To be fair, perhaps she said that on the rebound. It certainly is not a cheap point to the Thalidomide Trust, which stands to lose some £75,000 because of the inadvertent drafting of a clause—or so it was led to believe.
The Thalidomide Trust wrote to the Chancellor earlier this month because, in the final correspondence that the charity had with the chairman of the Board of the Inland 252 Revenue, he made it clear that the compensation scheme to which I referred—the relief scheme—was not wholly drawn up by the Revenue, but had been expressly decided on by Ministers. In Mr. Montagu's letter to the Thalidomide Trust—he is the chairman of the Board of the Inland Revenue—he revealed that Ministers were aware of the position of charities that had invested in mixed funds. Apparently, the legislation had to be narrowly drawn in order to avoid complexity—not something that the Government were successful in avoiding elsewhere in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997. However, I put that to one side.
The consequences were clear. The Thalidomide Trust—other charities may well be in such a position—has lost about £70,000. That is a serious loss because, in a few years' time, the trust will receive no further capital payments. The House needs no reminding that more than 400 people were disabled by the thalidomide drug. They have continuing and very expensive needs.
The previous Government recognised the special difficulty of charities such as the Thalidomide Trust. When, in 1996, it was apparent that the trust had insufficient capital to maintain the distributions to beneficiaries at existing levels, the previous Conservative Government chipped in some £7 million. Tonight, we are talking about £70,000 being taken from it. That is not a huge sum. I should have thought that it was perfectly possible, with all the technical expertise that is available to the Inland Revenue, for the compensation scheme to be adjusted. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider.
§ Mr. Gibb
As events unfold since the July Budget last year, more and more injustices are becoming apparent from the decision taken last July to end the repayment of dividend tax credits. We are already aware that, as a result of that one decision, pension funds—the funds that will give rise to the incomes of elderly people in their retirement—have been robbed to the tune of £5 billion a year. That means that, unless people increase their contributions to their pension funds, they will lose substantial sums on retirement.
There is considerable evidence that people are not aware of what the Government did to their pension funds last year, and they will have a nasty shock in 20 years if they have not increased their pension contributions, or their employers have not increased their contributions by about 11 per cent. on average. Those pension funds will be inadequately funded, and people's pensions in retirement will be less than they would otherwise have been, and less than people expected.
We have also heard of the injustice arising from the decision taken last July about non-taxpaying pensioners—300,000 of them—who, on average, will be £75 a year worse off as a result of that measure. Earlier today, we heard from constituents throughout the land who will suffer real hardship next April when the measure comes into force, and people will no longer be able to reclaim £100, £200, £300 or £400 a year from their dividend income.
We know already of the injustice being faced by charities generally as a result of the measure taken last July to end the repayment of dividend tax credits. Charities will lose £400 million a year, despite the taper, because tapers eventually taper to an end. At that time, 253 charities will lose significant income. Some will suffer very badly indeed, especially those that rely on their investment income from endowments established over the years.
As a result of a letter from the Thalidomide Trust, a further injustice has become apparent, which arises for charities that have invested in mixed funds. One wonders how many further injustices will arise from that one measure. We have seen the wholesale restructuring of the corporation tax regime as a result of a measure taken in the Finance Act last year.
The Thalidomide Trust is a worthwhile organisation which helps to deal with the children affected by the thalidomide drug 30 years ago. As a person of 37 years of age, born at the time that the drug was about, but for the grace of God, I could easily have been one of those children. Contemporaries of my mother took the drug, and people of my age are acutely aware of the damage that it did to so many people in this country. As a result of a measure taken in July 1997, the Thalidomide Trust will lose £70,000 a year.
The matter has been handled callously; there seems to be no sensitivity on the Government's part. It seems that they are so determined to fulfil their pledge of winning two election terms that they intend to fulfil their spending pledges by stealthily taxing pension funds and charitable organisations. They do not care about the consequences for non-taxpaying individuals—the 300,000 pensioners. They do not care what effect their measures will have on the real value of pension funds. Judging from correspondence from the Revenue, the Government clearly do not care about the effect on the Thalidomide Trust.
I quote from another letter from the chairman of the Inland Revenue to the Thalidomide Trust. He states:I am afraid that there is nothing I can helpfully add. Ministers took their policy decision in full knowledge of the implications and it is for us to give effect to it.Ministers knew what they were doing; it was not an error or oversight. Their action has caused enormous damage to the Thalidomide Trust, and I hope very much that the Minister will tell the House tonight that she intends to reverse the decision and accept the amendments, or propose another measure that will alleviate the £70,000 loss endured by that important charitable trust.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell)
I shall begin with the three Government amendments. I am grateful for the acknowledgement by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) of the line that the Government took in Committee. We chose to introduce three new amendments this evening in order to make incontrovertibly clear what I said in Committee about extending the scope of the benefit that marks the millennium. In Committee, I explicitly read the Government's view on to the record. However, in order to give those who are so generous as to support charity in this way the added reassurance that medical provision would be included, we thought that it would be wise to introduce the three new amendments. I am grateful for the support of Opposition Members.
In relation to amendments Nos. 53 and 54, we had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the date of the millennium. I must admit that we had some fun in 254 Committee discussing the millennium date definition advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). He seemed to think that the millennium was a movable feast and that perhaps, like the synod of Whitby, we could convene and discuss a date that would be the millennium. As a consequence, both the Government and the official Opposition reached rare agreement about the date of the millennium.
I said that I would reconsider the case made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for extending the provision for three months beyond the date of the millennium. However, I do not think that the case has been made for that extension. The measure is designed to focus giving for a specific purpose on one specific date: it allows people to mark the millennium by assisting those who are in poverty in less advantaged parts of the world. The scheme must have a cut-off date, and that date coincides logically with the millennium.
I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I did earlier in Committee, about the continuing investigation into the future of charities taxation. Anything we do in relation to this millennium giving does not prejudge in any way what could happen under the review of charities taxation. There is no reason to believe that there will be a less advantageous system for giving after the millennium because of the ending of this millennium project about which the Chancellor feels so strongly. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments. That would be unfortunate, given our commonality of purpose in relation to this scheme, which would allow the generous people of this country to mark the millennium in a way that gives the greatest benefit to the poorest in our world.
I turn to proposed new clause 16. The Opposition have introduced an exceptionally narrow point on Report which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is concerned with investments by charities through mixed unauthorised unit trusts. The new clause is not very robust technically, but I will not concentrate on its technical aspects. I turn to the substantive argument to answer the hon. Gentleman's points.
The wider point is that charities have a range of options when investing their money. We made quite sure that the advisers to charities had a year to digest the implications of our proposals last year for tax credits on dividends. What is more, we have given them almost as long again to prepare for next April when the proposals come fully into force. Therefore, charities have the opportunity to put their funds into investments in such a way as to maximise tax benefits while maximising their returns.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Thalidomide Trust and, surprisingly, introduced some rather unfortunate inaccuracies in relation to that trust. I have in front of me the first letter received by Ministers in relation to that matter dated 22 June 1998, eight days ago—a letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That correspondence relates to the contact that there has been between the Thalidomide Trust and the Revenue.
The point at issue about the advice that the Revenue gave to the Thalidomide Trust relates to events in December 1996, when the Thalidomide Trust contacted the Revenue to ensure that its investments were in no way part of a tax avoidance scheme. The Revenue's response 255 was the kind of confirmation that it required. But there is no way in which the Revenue could give any guarantees about future tax treatment, particularly as this happened under the previous Government. There was a general election, and the present Government decided to correct the anomaly that had existed in relation to tax credits.
I have specifically asked Revenue officials whether they have evidence of any other charities that have encountered the same difficulty, and we know of none. The Revenue cannot be responsible for the nature of the decisions that charities make about how to invest their funds. We have deliberately gone to considerable lengths to allow charities the opportunity to arrange their portfolios in such a way that they maximise the benefits to themselves.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
The hon. Lady rightly confirms what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said about 1996, when the Revenue confirmed that the tax would not be levied on the charity's investment, and she rightly confirms that this month, Ministers received a letter. Will she give the House her view on what my hon. Friend said about the chairman of the Revenue, Mr. Montagu, informing the charity that six months ago, Ministers knew the effects of what they were doing on the charity's investment?
§ Mrs. Liddell
The hon. Gentleman may not have been present during debates on the previous Finance Bill when these matters were extensively debated. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), with his technical expertise, has long waxed eloquent on these matters. We recognised at that time that there would be an impact on charities, which is why preferential treatments for charities were built into that legislation to give them an opportunity to rearrange their portfolios in such a way that they could maximise the benefits to themselves.
That was a rational and clear-cut way in which to behave, given that an anomaly in the taxation system had to be corrected. It was the Conservative Government who began the process of the correction of tax credits. Therefore, one regrets that the decisions that the Thalidomide Trust took in relation to its investments have meant that it was liable for more tax than it thought. At the end of the day, however, the advice given to the Thalidomide Trust by the Revenue related to a specific inquiry, before the election of this Government, about whether the trust was becoming involved in a tax avoidance measure.
The Conservative case is not well made in relation to this matter. The Government, in giving charities the opportunity to seek independent advice on how they should place their investments, gave charities as much opportunity as possible to take the right kind of advice so that they could configure their portfolios in the most appropriate way. Therefore, I cannot accept the new clause, because it would mean making a one-off provision merely to take into account a single sort of investment. Charities will be able to find a range of secure and productive homes for their money. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw new clause 16 so that we can continue with the consensus that we have enjoyed in respect of this important part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Fallon
With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In respect of amendments Nos. 53 and 54, may 256 I tell the Economic Secretary that she is, as we know, a hard lady? We have tried to put our point three times, and each time she has resisted, so I shall happily withdraw it.
In respect of new clause 16 and the problems that the Thalidomide Trust faces, her response was not at all satisfactory. First, she suggested that there were inaccuracies in what I said. I made it clear that the advice from the Revenue was given in December 1996. There is no dispute about that: I have the words, and I quoted them, so I hope that she will withdraw any suggestion that I was implying that the advice was given in a different December.
§ Mrs. Liddell
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified the situation, and I am happy to accept his point. If I have misunderstood him, I am happy to withdraw my remarks, but I hope that he will withdraw his remarks about the Government not being concerned about the matter, and about Ministers failing to respond, given that we received the letter only on 22 June.
§ Mr. Fallon
I shall deal with that point in a moment, but let me make it clear that I said at the start of my remarks that the date was December 1996, and it was. I am glad that the Economic Secretary has withdrawn the suggestion that that was inaccurate.
Ministers may have been informed about the issue only on 22 June; so were we, but we have been doing something about it. We raised the issue at Question Time last week, and have had a new clause drafted and debated within seven days of receiving the Thalidomide Trust's letter. The hon. Lady, with all her officials in the Treasury, could have tabled a new clause, so it is nonsense to suggest that she has not had time to consider the matter.
§ Mrs. Liddell
I am sorry, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is still obscuring the main point. I am not saying that the Government have not had time to consider the point. My general point is that we received correspondence from the Thalidomide Trust on 22 June; my substantive point relates to the fact that the new clause would introduce a narrow change for a specific sort of investment. That is the substance of my remarks and, for that reason, I ask hon. Members to oppose the new clause, if the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw it.
§ Mr. Fallon
The Economic Secretary is now playing for time and flannelling. The plain fact is that she is not prepared to do anything in respect of the Thalidomide Trust. She has confessed that this is the only case of which the Treasury is aware; if it is the only case, it is a good one. For the sake of £70,000 for one of the most deserving charities, which has been taken away by the Government, I ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 279.260
|Division No. 320]||[10.42 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Baker, Norman|
|Allan, Richard||Ballard, Jackie|
|Amess, David||Beggs, Roy|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Bercow, John|
|Arbuthnot, James||Beresford, Sir Paul|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Body, Sir Richard|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Boswell, Tim|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Brady, Graham||Laing, Mrs Eleanor|
|Brake, Tom||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Brand, Dr Peter||Lansley, Andrew|
|Brazier, Julian||Leigh, Edward|
|Breed, Colin||Letwin, Oliver|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Lidington, David|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Livsey, Richard|
|Burnett, John||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Burns, Simon||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)||Loughton, Tim|
|Cash, William||Luff, Peter|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Chidgey, David||MacKay, Andrew|
|Chope, Christopher||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Clappison, James||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)||Maples, John|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Collins, Tim||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Cotter, Brian||Moore, Michael|
|Cran, James||Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Moss, Malcolm|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Norman, Archie|
|Day, Stephen||Öpik, Lembit|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Ottaway, Richard|
|Duncan, Alan||Page, Richard|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Paice, James|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Paterson, Owen|
|Evans, Nigel||Pickles, Eric|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Prior, David|
|Faber, David||Randall, John|
|Fallon, Michael||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Rendel, David|
|Flight, Howard||Robathan, Andrew|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Ross, William (E Lond'y)|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Fraser, Christopher||Ruffley, David|
|Garnier, Edward||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Sanders, Adrian|
|Gibb, Nick||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Gill, Christopher||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Soames, Nicholas|
|Gorrie, Donald||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Gray, James||Spring, Richard|
|Green, Damian||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Greenway, John||Steen, Anthony|
|Grieve, Dominic||Streeter, Gary|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Stunell, Andrew|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Swayne, Desmond|
|Hammond, Philip||Swinney, John|
|Hancock, Mike||Syms, Robert|
|Harris, Dr Evan||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Harvey, Nick||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Hawkins, Nick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Hayes, John||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Heald, Oliver||Townend, John|
|Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)||Tredinnick, David|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Trend, Michael|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas||Tyler, Paul|
|Horam, John||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Hunter, Andrew||Viggers, Peter|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Wallace, James|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Wardle, Charles|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Waterson, Nigel|
|Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Webb, Steve|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Welsh, Andrew|
|Key, Robert||Whittingdale, John|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Wilkinson, John||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Willis, Phil||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wilshire, David||Sir David Madel and|
|Woodward, Shaun||Mrs. Caroline Spelman.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Cummings, John|
|Ainger, Nick||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Alexander, Douglas||Dalyell, Tam|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Davidson, Ian|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Austin, John||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Ballard, Jackie||Dawson, Hilton|
|Banks, Tony||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Bayley, Hugh||Denham, John|
|Beard, Nigel||Dismore, Andrew|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Dobbin, Jim|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Doran, Frank|
|Benton, Joe||Dowd, Jim|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Drew, David|
|Berry, Roger||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Betts, Clive||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Blizzard, Bob||Ennis, Jeff|
|Boateng, Paul||Etherington, Bill|
|Borrow, David||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Flint, Caroline|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Foulkes, George|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Galbraith, Sam|
|Browne, Desmond||Gapes, Mike|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Gardiner, Barry|
|Burden, Richard||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Burgon, Colin||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Byers, Stephen||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Caborn, Richard||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Goggins, Paul|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Cann, Jamie||Grant, Bernie|
|Caplin, Ivor||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Casale, Roger||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Grogan, John|
|Chaytor, David||Gunnell, John|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hain, Peter|
|Clapham, Michael||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Hanson, David|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Heppell, John|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Clelland, David||Hill, Keith|
|Clwyd, Ann||Hinchliffe, David|
|Coaker, Vernon||Hoey, Kate|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Home Robertson, John|
|Cohen, Harry||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Coleman, Iain||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Colman, Tony||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Cousins, Jim||Hutton, John|
|Cranston, Ross||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Crausby, David||Illsley, Eric|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)||Pike, Peter L|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)||Plaskitt, James|
|Jamieson, David||Pope, Greg|
|Jenkins, Brian||Pound, Stephen|
|Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)||Powell, Sir Raymond|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Jowell, Ms Tessa||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Purchase, Ken|
|Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Khabra, Piara S||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Kidney, David||Radice, Giles|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Rammell, Bill|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Kingham, Ms Tess||Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Lepper, David||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Leslie, Christopher||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Roy, Frank|
|Linton, Martin||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Livingstone, Ken||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|Lock, David||Salter, Martin|
|Love, Andrew||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McAllion, John||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McCabe, Steve||Sheerman, Barry|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)||Short, Rt Hon Clare|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McDonnell, John||Singh, Marsha|
|McFall, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)|
|McNulty, Tony||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|MacShane, Denis||Soley, Clive|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Spellar, John|
|Mandelson, Peter||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)||Stevenson, George|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Marshall-Andrews, Robert||Stott, Roger|
|Martlew, Eric||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Maxton, John||Stringer, Graham|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Meale, Alan||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Merron, Gillian||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Milburn, Alan||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Miller, Andrew||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Mitchell, Austin||Timms, Stephen|
|Moffatt, Laura||Touhig, Don|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Trickett, Jon|
|Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)||Truswell, Paul|
|Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Mudie, George||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Mullin, Chris||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)||Vaz, Keith|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Olner, Bill||Wareing, Robert N|
|O'Neill, Martin||Watts, David|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||White, Brian|
|Osborne, Ms Sandra||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Pearson, Ian||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Pendry, Tom||Winnick, David|
|Pickthall, Colin||Wood, Mike|
|Woolas, Phil||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)||Jane Kennedy and|
|Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)||Mr. Jon Owen Jones.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.