HC Deb 03 April 2000 vol 347 cc644-57 4.24 pm
Mr. David Willetts (Havant)

I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 68, line 37, at end insert— '( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any childcare provision by the employer, which shall be exempt from Class IA National Insurance contributions.'.

Madam Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 63, in page 68, line 37, at end insert— '( ) Nothing in this section shall apply to any healthcare provision by the employer, which shall be exempt from Class IA National Insurance contributions.'.

Mr. Willetts

Clause 69 is the stealth tax clause. It is the clause that imposes employers national insurance contributions on a range of benefits in kind, from Christmas parties to rape alarms. Its purpose is to raise £225 million of extra revenue without the Government being caught out by anybody spotting what they are up to. The clause is where the damage is done.

We thought from the exchanges that we have already had with Ministers that the Government were arguing that everything that bore income tax as a benefit in kind should also bear employers national insurance contributions. That was very much the tenor of the Minister of State's remarks in Committee. He said: The trigger for the change is the taxation of the benefit in kind, not the other way round. The national insurance does not cause the tax to be paid; the tax causes the national insurance to be paid.— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 2000; c. 675.] The Minister of State was formulating what we could flatteringly regard as the Rooker doctrine. In effect, he was saying, "If there is a tax liability, there should be a national insurance liability as well." We could understand that doctrine. We might not agree with it, but at least it was coherent and consistent.

The problem for the Minister is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has knocked that argument away in his Budget statement. The right hon. Gentleman proudly announced that when it comes to child care, although that is taxable as a benefit in kind, it will not be subject to national insurance contributions for the employer. Paragraph 4.47 is entitled "Encouraging employers to provide childcare." It states: To encourage employers to help employees with childcare, all provision in kind will remain exempt from employer class IA national insurance contributions when these are extended to other employee benefits from April 2000. The Chancellor has therefore made it clear that it is possible for a benefit in kind to bear tax and that it does not need automatically to bear employers national insurance contributions as well.

That has an unfortunate consequence for the Minister of State. It leaves the ingenious doctrine that he formulated in Committee looking rather threadbare. He cannot say that he must impose national insurance contributions on all these items because they are taxable, because the Chancellor has taken credit for doing exactly the opposite. He has chosen something that will bear tax but does not have to bear national insurance contributions.

Amendment No. 62 takes the Chancellor at his word. It would deliver what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about in his Budget statement and would exempt child care from employers national insurance contributions. Perhaps this is the triumph of optimism over experience, but we rather hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is absolutely in line with what the Chancellor said in the Budget. It would be a challenge even to the Minister of State's ingenuity to work out why he should whip his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against an amendment that merely implements one of the Chancellor's announcements.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend to understand why the Government may not want to accept the amendment. If the provision is on the statute book, it will be in tablets of stone and they will be committed to it, whereas if it is not, the Chancellor can always change his mind in future.

Mr. Willetts

My hon. Friend makes an ingenious suggestion. I hope that he is not right, but he may be. We shall be interested to see what grounds, if any, the Minister offers for not accepting the amendment.

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

I intervene on a point of clarification. We are listening to the debate with genuine interest. The amendment refers to child care. Is that a reference only to employer workplace-provided child care? Does it include vouchers? What comes within the scope of the amendment?

4.30 pm
Mr. Willetts

I would be happy to accept the definition that the Chancellor offered in the Red Book. If the Minister offered a revised text of the amendment so that it exactly followed the lines of the Red Book, I would be happy with that. The Red Book states: This employer NICs exemption will apply to direct provision, childcare vouchers and payments under contracts between employers and third party providers. We would be happy with a provision that exactly matched what the Chancellor said. If any change in the drafting were needed to clarify the amendment, we would welcome that.

Amendment No. 62 would merely implement through the Bill what the Chancellor said that he wanted to do in the Budget. We know from the fascinating exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the Minister in Committee that changes to national insurance contribution rates may be better implemented in social security legislation than in Finance Bill measures.

If the Government do not do so now, it is not clear that they will be able to do so in the Finance Bill, so they may have to wait for some other social security legislation. Given that we want to get on with the policy, I do not see why the Minister would not choose to use the vehicle conveniently before us, so I hope that he will accept amendment No. 62.

Amendment No. 63 applies the same philosophy to payments for insurance for medical care. If the Government recognise that employers NICs do not have to be applied to every taxable benefit, and if they proudly make a virtue of exempting child care from employers NICs, our view is that exactly the same arguments apply to health care and medical insurance.

If an employer is so public spirited as to want to provide child care facilities for his staff, and will not bear employers national insurance contributions for that, and if he wishes to provide flu jabs for his staff, why is that not at least equally deserving? Why does not that, as well as the entire range of medical insurance payments, merit exemption from employers NICs?

We say that if there is an argument for an exemption from employers NICs for child care, there is at least as good an argument for an exemption for private health care. If the argument is good enough for the Chancellor to use with reference to child care, we want to hear from the Minister why he thinks that employers providing medical care in whatever form for their employees should be taxed more heavily—should bear an extra 12 per cent. employers NICs—than for providing child care. We regard the benefits as equally desirable, and we see no basis for exempting one from national insurance contributions, but not the other.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. As usual, he is intellectually right, but is not the reason why the Government may have a problem with the argument that although they have no known ideological objection to children, they have a known and inveterate ideological objection to private health insurance?

Mr. Willetts

When my hon. Friend said that I was winning the argument intellectually, I knew that that was a polite way of saying that he thought I was losing. He may well be right about the reason why the Government may not accept the amendment—because of their hostility to private health care.

I end my brief comments by referring the Minister of State yet again—I promise him that it will be the last time today—to what the Labour manifesto states on the subject. I found a couple of copies of the Labour manifesto remaindered in the fiction section of a bookshop, and I have enjoyed citing quotations from it all afternoon. On taxation, it states: Taxation is not neutral in the way it raises revenue. How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was absolutely right. If the Government oppose amendment No. 63, it is because they do not like private health care and private medical insurance. That is wrong and irresponsible, especially in view of the pressures on the health service. We therefore urge the Government to accept the amendments.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

Unless the amendments are accepted, the Bill will discourage people from becoming good employers. After all the Government have said about encouraging people to be good employers, they should accept such amendments, which will enable people to become good employers by encouraging them to look after their staff.

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) gave some good examples of charging income tax but not national insurance. He could have gone on to say that tax but not national insurance is charged on salaries that are above a specific amount. There are many different ways of viewing the matter. It is wrong of the Government to suggest that there are precedents and that, if something is subject to tax, it automatically has to be subject to national insurance. That is wrong and inconsistent.

I believed that the Government intended to encourage employers to provide child care facilities. We have sat here time and again and listened to such proposals. I would therefore be surprised if the Government did not accept amendment No. 62.

Our national health service is struggling and we have to find not only more private provision, but more money for the health service. We should therefore try to do that. If we are to build the sort of health service that everybody wants and that people rightly demand nowadays, we have to find new ways of putting money into the health service or any health care provision. It would therefore be rather perverse to discourage employers from providing money that would relieve the strain on the health service.

With those few remarks, I support amendments Nos. 62 and 63.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

The Minister must explain why amendment No. 62 is not a Government amendment. If the Government do not take this opportunity to implement the Chancellor's proposals, what opportunity will they take? I look forward with interest to finding out why the Minister has not introduced such a proposal, never mind his reasons for not accepting the amendment.

In addition to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on amendment No. 63, it strikes me that it is an employment-creating measure. Many small businesses provide insurance through the sort of cover with which the amendment deals because they cannot afford to lose key individuals through medical problems for a prolonged period. That would have detrimental consequences for the employment opportunities of other personnel in the small firm. They therefore provide for private health care insurance so that there is no delay when medical treatment is required for conditions such as hernias. We should encourage such activity by accepting amendment No. 63. That is desirable and will create greater efficiency in the workplace.

With respect to what my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said, the Prime Minister has attached a target to the percentage of gross national product that we should spend on health care. He cited the European average, but comparable economies such as Germany and France spend a great deal more on health care than Britain—approaching 10 per cent. At the current rate of growth in health expenditure, it will take us 19 and 25 years to achieve their respective levels of provision. Those countries achieve those levels by relying on private sector funding, which is precisely what amendment No. 63 would promote. It may be the answer to the problem for which the Prime Minister has been seeking a solution, and I urge the Minister to give it full consideration.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pertinently asked why the Government have not tabled such amendments, but we shall not receive a frank answer to that question from Labour Members, and the reason for that must be exposed in the debate. The Government have a double agenda, which they do not want to reveal explicitly to the electorate, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) has exposed, and usefully so, by tabling the amendments.

The first part of the double agenda is the extension of employer's national insurance contributions to such benefits. That is one of a range of stealth taxes that have been imposed on the British people since they misguidedly voted for a Labour Government in 1997. They were not least misguided by the Prime Minister's explicit promise, "We have no plans to increase taxes at all." That was a thoroughly dishonest promise: the pensions tax was introduced within a few weeks, there have been enormous increases in petrol duty, and married couples allowance and mortgage interest relief have been removed—an endless series of stealth taxes. The proposal is simply another in the series and it cannot be understood except against the background of the covert Government policy of increasing the tax burden while pretending to the British public that it is not increasing at all. The amendments have exposed that particular purpose and it is no surprise that the Government are not only not adopting them, but, I am convinced, will oppose them if my hon. Friends decide to put them to the vote.

The second part of the agenda is also covert, but it has already been revealed as it has surfaced in a number of contexts and we ought to be alive to it: the Government intend to run down private sector medicine, private sector provision and private health insurance for the most destructive of ideological reasons. That cannot be in the interests of the country's health, and I shall explain why in a moment.

The Government's agenda has already manifested itself in the removal of the tax break provided by the previous Conservative Government to people of retirement age for paying private medical insurance premiums. That compensating tax break was provided because people beyond a certain age, and certainly those in retirement, have to pay much higher premiums, but it has been taken away. That was also a stealth tax, though it has never been admitted as such, and an attack on the private medical insurance system. The Government want to reduce the flow of premium income to the private health sector and the proposal is part and parcel of that agenda.

The Government is penalising employers by taxing them for providing such benefits to their employees and people out there who elected us to the House will think that particularly cruel as the national health service is breaking down. This winter, the NHS has been in an unprecedented crisis. Waiting lists are increasing, and the nasty new phenomenon of a waiting list to get on a waiting list has entered the system in our country—and our country alone among EU countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said.

4.45 pm

Against that background, the Government wants to penalise employers who try to help their employees because the national health service is falling down and may not be there when they need it. That is bad not only for the employers who are being penalised, but for the health of the country as a whole. The effect of the Government's proposals will be to reduce the total flow of funds through private health insurance premiums and the private health insurance system into the provision of health care. That is bound to happen. That flow will be reduced unless amendment No. 63 is adopted so as to restore the position. As night follows day, if the price of something is increased, the demand for it is reduced. The net price to employers of providing such protection will be increased by the Bill unless it is amended.

We should clear our minds of any ideological prejudice on this matter, and consider the practical consequences of voting through the Bill without this amendment. If the amendment is not accepted, it will be very bad for the health of the nation for two reasons. If people have their own provision and can purchase private sector care, they no longer claim on the national health service. People can be taken off NHS waiting lists if their employer is providing private sector cover for them, and others who are not lucky enough to have an employer who can afford to provide such cover can be brought forward on the waiting list, all other things remaining equal. Under the Labour Government, no doubt the waiting lists will get worse, but all other things being equal, if the amendment is accepted, the position will be alleviated not just for the beneficiaries of private sector insurance, but for those who do not enjoy such private sector cover.

Another aspect may not have occurred to the Minister of State. More resources coming into the health service means that more people are employed, and that those who work in the private sector and the NHS are provided with a higher total income than they would otherwise receive. It is well known that many consultants practise in the health service under NHS contracts for four days a week, and are at liberty on the fifth and sixth day—they often work on Saturdays—to provide care for their private patients. Those private patients do not therefore have to wait in line, and the consultants, junior doctors and nurses get more income than they would get if we did not have that system.

If doctors and nurses were deprived of that income, the gap between medical earnings in this country and those in other EU countries or in the rest of the civilised world would increase even further. People would be dissatisfied with that, and fewer people would take up a medical career. Many people who practise medicine—especially the best people—would go abroad. They would obviously be allowed to work in EU countries, but they could also work in much of the world, even in countries where work permits are required. It is easy for a qualified doctor or nurse to acquire a work permit. There would be a real loss. It would be a double whammy attack on the provision of health care if the Government were allowed to proceed in that direction.

These two amendments are an attempt to save the country from a further manifestation—one more instalment—of the Government's two agendas: stealth taxes and the desire to penalise and ultimately to undermine private sector health provision. Those are two important issues. They are no less important because the Government continually try to bamboozle the British public so that people do not realise what agenda they are pursuing. On those two bases, we should support the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Leigh

This has the makings of an interesting debate, and we can be justified in looking forward to the Minister's reply. It will enable the Government to clarify their attitude to the way in which employers should provide for their employees. What sort of tax and national insurance system do we want to create?

To be fair to the Government, some argue that the tax system should provide no allowances. They argue that it should be entirely neutral, and that the Government should have no role in trying to persuade people to adopt particular modes of behaviour. That, they say, is why the married persons allowance and the mortgage allowance should be swept away. That is a point of view, although it is not one with which I agree, and it is relevant to our debate about national insurance contributions. The Government could say, "We are not interested in what provision employers make for their employees. It is not our business whether the provision involved relates to small matters such as Christmas parties or big matters such as health care or pensions."

An employer may wish to provide not just a perk—something enabling him to avoid paying tax—but something that he considers to be essential to himself and his employee. The Government could say, "Whatever extra provision the employer makes for his employee, we are justified in taxing it." Again, that is not a point of view with which I agree, but the issue is now so confused that the Government should explain their position.

Doing the right thing for society means saving for the future, for pensions, for health care that the NHS may not be able to deliver and for many other purposes. We can persuade people to do that only if we envisage a partnership between employee and employer. We are talking about good employers, not about fly-by-nights who try to do everything through sub-contractors, and do not care about their employees. When employers make provision for employees, we should welcome that, rather than saying, "This is another opportunity for us to raise £220 million in tax. The public will not notice, because it is buried deep in the Red Book. No employees will be affected. It will be a tax on employers, and they will not complain too much."

I understand where the Government are coming from, in terms of trying to raise money. What I cannot understand is the mixed message that they are sending to employers and employees about how good employment practices can be created. My hon. Friends are making the powerful point that we cannot possibly catch up with countries such as Germany and France in terms of health care provision for all employees—all people—simply by raising more taxes to pay for the national health service. If we are to improve health care for everyone, we must encourage private sector involvement. At present, people—many on marginal incomes—are given no encouragement to provide for their own private health care: indeed, they are given positive disincentives. What harm can it do to tell good employers that it is a good idea for them to help their employees with private health insurance, if they have reason for doing so?

Mr. Bercow

Although many large companies already provide such assistance in the form of corporate medical insurance schemes, should we not do more to encourage small businesses to provide the same level of support, given that they constitute 99.6 per cent. of firms in Britain? They employ about 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, and generate two fifths of our national output. Should not Ministers be far more sensitive to their needs?

Mr. Leigh

Of course Ministers should be sensitive to the needs of small employers. At present, arrangements involving private health insurance are very much the prerogative of larger, wealthier companies. As my hon. Friend said, if we are to make any progress on the matter, we must try to find ways of encouraging smaller employers to make such provision.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with employers providing child care. However, I cannot understand why the Government are putting all their efforts and resources into child care. For Ministers, child care is a totem of their political correctness. Child care is the one thing that they are going to achieve—and I have no argument with that. If a good employer wants to help his employees with child care, I would welcome it. However, I cannot understand why the Government are promoting that type of social insurance—which in itself is an excellent thing to do—while ignoring all other concepts of social insurance.

Child care is important, but making provision for one's old age, health and even travel are equally important. I therefore hope that Ministers will not simply dismiss this group of amendments, but deal with the arguments. Surely the House is entitled at the very least to a clear manifestation of the philosophy behind the Government's objectives. Are they simply trying to raise money, or are they trying to send clear moral messages to employees and employers about how they should try to create a better society? We look forward to hearing the Minister's speech.

Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs)

All that I wish to add to the points that have already been made in the debate is that Governments of any party never consider the knock-on effects of this type of action.

The old sectors of our economy are hard pressed—they are suffering from major competition and examining ways of saving money. What will be the consequence of the Government's proposed new stealth tax? The consequence of the Government's proposal to subject provision of child care, health care and other services to national insurance is that the old companies will cease to provide those benefits to their staff. I say to the people of Britain, "Just remember: when you lose your health care, you have this Government to thank for it."

What about the new economy? Cisco says, "You just try assessing national insurance contributions on our share schemes. If you do, we'll move our research and development business overseas." The new economy is much rougher and tougher, and it probably will not even begin providing health care or other benefits. Nevertheless, the new economy will not simply lie down and accept this type of stealth tax.

Therefore—both on the specific issues of health care and child care, and on the wider issue of this wretched, bamboozling national insurance stealth tax—the Government are failing to take account of the impact of their actions on ordinary British citizens and on the quality of the total package that they receive from their employers.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker)

I shall do my best to respond as briefly as possible to this group of amendments. I should like, first, to deal with the stealth tax bit of Opposition Members' speeches. Those hon. Members are simply playing around—and destroying the English language on an unparalleled scale—with such nonsense.

I am holding the regulatory impact assessment of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which was published last year, when the Bill was published, and is available free of charge. It contains 10 pages explaining the regulatory impact of the Bill on national insurance contributions. Some stealth tax! I also have the Inland Revenue's document on "Class IA National Insurance Contributions on Benefits in Kind", which, in draft, was sent to more than 1 million companies and employers. Some stealth tax! It is absolute nonsense to say that we are making proposals that people do not know about.

Mr. Quentin Davies

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rooker

I will not give way now.

Conservative Members should be ashamed of themselves for some of their comments—such as saying that we are taxing Christmas parties. Conservative Members have just ambled into the debate from their City jobs. We should let those who are viewing the debate know that—this is the reality—employers do not pay tax on a Christmas party that they provide for employees unless they provide at least £75 a head worth of benefit. That is not the type of Christmas party that any of my constituents would recognise. I wanted to get those points out of the way and on the record before we dealt with the main issues.

5 pm

We ask the House to disagree with both amendments. The national insurance provisions in the Bill are a step towards the alignment of tax and national insurance benefits. They are part of a package for implementing the recommendations in Martin Taylor's report "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System".

The extension of class 1A was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his 1999 Budget. From April 2000, it will cover benefits in kind such as private health insurance, beneficial loans or the use of the company yacht. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that employers will pay national insurance only on benefits in kind that are already subject to income tax. The employer will pay the same amount into the national insurance fund, however they reward their employees.

It seems to have escaped the attention of those on the Conservative Front Bench that national insurance has not been the bailiwick of the Department of Social Security since the Contributions Agency went to the Inland Revenue. It is not possible to deal with national insurance in a Finance Bill. Those who have served on Finance Bill Committees understand that. That is why we have included these clauses. The only reason why we do not have a Treasury Minister present is that it is only a couple of weeks since the Budget and it is an incredibly busy time for Treasury Ministers, with the Finance Bill about to be published. I am speaking on behalf of the Government, but in particular on behalf of the Treasury. We are putting a Treasury area of responsibility in our Bill.

Mr. Leigh

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we are elevating a new principle for our proceedings. We have just heard from the Minister that the issue that we are discussing is a matter for the Treasury, because that is the only Department that can make decisions on it, but Treasury Ministers cannot be bothered to come to the House because they have other things to do. Is not the House more important—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is for the Government to choose who represents them on their policy.

Mr. Rooker

And it is not what I said, either. There is another aspect of the Bill that is essentially a matter for another Department, but it is wholly in order and 1 shall answer on that later in the debate, just as I did when we debated the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill last year.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar)

What about child care?

Mr. Rooker

The decision on child care will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made the original decisions—and announced them in his 1999 Budget—on the extension of national insurance to benefits in kind. Since then, he has decided to introduce a child care exemption. I do not know the exact figure, because we do not have the necessary wording in the regulations, but it is about £1 million. The changes that we are considering will raise £225 million, so the child care element is peripheral.

We can deal with amendment No. 62 very quickly. It is unnecessary, because of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget announcement. The Bill provides powers for the issue to be dealt with by regulation in due course. We shall carry that through for issues that are exempted. Section 10(9), to be inserted in the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 by clause 69, provides for class 1A contributions not to be payable or to be reduced in prescribed circumstances. The issue is fully covered and will be dealt with in regulations in due course. There is no secrecy. Provision will be made, but not in the Bill.

I also cannot support amendment No. 63. Excluding private health care provision from class IA contributions would undermine the main purpose of the measure, which is to align the tax and national insurance treatment of benefits in kind and to make the national insurance system fairer by bringing closer together the treatment of cash and non-cash earnings. The extension of class lA will reduce the distortion in the national insurance system, which provides the incentive for employers to remunerate their employees with benefits rather than cash.

Bearing in mind what hon. Members have said about the national health service, of the £225 million that will be raised—roughly half of which will involve health care—£17 million will go to the NHS.

Mr. Pickles

Extra?

Mr. Rooker

Of course it is extra. It is £17 million new income.

The measure's prime purpose is to make the scheme fairer and to reflect modern pay practices. Rather than subsidising large firms, which can afford to offer their employees large packages of benefits in kind, at the expense of small firms and their employees, we prefer to level the playing field—and put more money into the national health service.

The amendments would deprive the NHS of £17 million.

Mr. Willetts

We have had a useful short debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on making some telling points, but I am afraid that the Minister's contribution was extremely depressing. It leaves us with no option other than to press the amendment to a vote, for two reasons: because we believe in encouraging child care and responsible employers rather than in imposing an extra 12 per cent. employers' contribution, which is a tax on child care; and because it will make the Government look absolutely ridiculous.

We are trying to implement a Budget measure, and the Minister will have to explain why he has decided to put his troops through the Lobby to vote against something that was in the Budget. We know that the Budget has had a rocky couple of weeks, but it seems a bit much when, the first time that a Budget measure is presented to the House, the Government Whips decide to vote against it. That is getting rather carried away.

The Minister's ultimate defence was, "Don't worry. We don't want to vote with you on the amendment tonight, but we will introduce a regulation that will have exactly the same effect." Why will he not simply vote with us to make the amendment? I look forward to seeing his correspondence with the Chancellor, explaining why he was not able to support an amendment that simply implements what was in the Budget.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 265.

Division No. 134] [5.8 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Boswell, Tim
Allan, Richard Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Amess, David Brady, Graham
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Brake, Tom
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Brazier, Julian
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Breed, Colin
Ballard, Jackie Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, Rt Hon A J Browning, Mrs Angela
Bercow, John Burns, Simon
Beresford, Sir Paul Burstow, Paul
Butterfill, John MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cable, Dr Vincent MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Maclean, Rt Hon David
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Chidgey, David McLoughlin, Patrick
Chope, Christopher Malins, Humfrey
Clappison, James Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) May, Mrs Theresa
Moore, Michael
Collins, Tim Moss, Malcolm
Cotter, Brian Norman, Archie
Cran, James Oaten, Mark
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Ottaway, Richard
Day, Stephen Page, Richard
Duncan, Alan Paice, James
Duncan Smith, Iain Pickles, Eric
Evans, Nigel Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Faber, David Prior, David
Fabricant, Michael Randall, John
Fallon, Michael Redwood, Rt Hon John
Flight, Howard Rendel, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Robathan, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath) Robertson, Laurence
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fox, Dr Liam Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Fraser, Christopher Ruffley, David
Gale, Roger St Aubyn, Nick
Garnier, Edward Sanders, Adrian
George, Andrew (St Ives) Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gibb, Nick Shepherd, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gray, James Soames, Nicholas
Greenway, John Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, Dominic Spicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Spring, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steen, Anthony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Swayne, Desmond
Hammond, Philip Syms, Robert
Harris, Dr Evan Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hawkins, Nick Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hayes, John Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Heald, Oliver Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Health, David(Somerton & Frome) Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Tonge, Dr Jenny
Horam, John Trend, Michael
Hunter, Andrew Tyrie, Andrew
Jenkin, Bernard Viggers, Peter
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Walter, Robert
Wardle, Charles
Key, Robert Waterson, Nigel
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Webb, Steve
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Wells, Bowen
Kirkwood, Archy Whitney, Sir Raymond
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Whittingdale, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Willetts, David
Lansley, Andrew Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Leigh, Edward Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Letwin, Oliver Yeo, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Lidington, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Tellers for the Ayes:
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Llwyd, Elfyn and
Loughton, Tim Mr. Peter Luff.
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Ashton, Joe
Ainger, Nick Atherton, Ms Candy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Atkins, Charlotte
Alexander, Douglas Austin, John
Allen, Graham Barnes, Harry
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Barron, Kevin
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Bayley, Hugh
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Beard, Nigel
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Goggins, Paul
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Golding, Mrs Llin
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Bermingham, Gerald Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Berry, Roger Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Blears, Ms Hazel Grocott, Bruce
Blizzard, Bob Grogan, John
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Bradshaw, Ben Healey, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Browne, Desmond Heppell, John
Buck, Ms Karen Hill, Keith
Burden, Richard Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Hope, Phil
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Hopkins, Kelvin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Howells, Dr Kim
Campbell-Savours, Dale Hoyle, Lindsay
Caplin, Ivor Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Casale, Roger Humble, Mrs Joan
Cawsey, Ian Hurst, Alan
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hutton, John
Clapham, Michael Iddon, Dr Brian
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Illsley, Eric
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Jenkins, Brian
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Ann Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Coaker, Vernon Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Coffey, Ms Ann Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Coleman, Iain Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Colman, Tony Keeble, Ms Sally
Connarty, Michael Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Cooper, Yvette Kelly, Ms Ruth
Corbett, Robin Kemp, Fraser
Corbyn, Jeremy Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Cousins, Jim Khabra, Piara S
Crausby, David Kidney, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Dalyell, Tam Laxton, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Lepper, David
Darvill, Keith Leslie, Christopher
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Levitt, Tom
Davidson, Ian Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Dawson, Hilton Linton, Martin
Dean, Mrs Janet Lock, David
Dismore, Andrew Love, Andrew
Dobbin, Jim McAvoy, Thomas
Doran, Frank McCabe, Steve
Dowd, Jim McDonagh, Siobhain
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Macdonald, Calum
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) McDonnell, John
Edwards, Huw McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ennis, Jeff Mackinlay, Andrew
Field, Rt Hon Frank McNulty, Tony
Fisher, Mark MacShane, Denis
Fitzpatrick, Jim Mactaggart, Fiona
Fitzsimons, Lorna McWalter, Tony
Flint, Caroline McWilliam, John
Follett, Barbara Mahon, Mrs Alice
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Foulkes, George Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Gardiner, Barry Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Gerrard, Neil Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Godman, Dr Norman A Miller, Andrew
Godsiff, Roger Moffatt, Laura
Morley, Elliot Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mountford, Kali Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mullin, Chris Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Soley, Clive
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Southworth, Ms Helen
Naysmith, Dr Doug Spellar, John
Norris, Dan Squire, Ms Rachel
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Steinberg, Gerry
Olner, Bill Stevenson, George
O'Neill, Martin Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Osborne, Ms Sandra Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Palmer, Dr Nick Stinchcombe, Paul
Pearson, Ian Stoate, Dr Howard
Pendry, Tom Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Perham, Ms Linda Stringer, Graham
Pickthall, Colin Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pike, Peter L Sutcliffe, Gerry
Plaskitt, James Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pollard, Kerry
Pond, Chris Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pope, Greg Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pound, Stephen Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Powell, Sir Raymond Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Tipping, Paddy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Trickett, Jon
Prosser, Gwyn Truswell, Paul
Purchase, Ken Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Quinn, Lawrie Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Raynsford, Nick Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Walley, Ms Joan
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Ward, Ms Claire
Roche, Mrs Barbara Watts, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff White, Brian
Rooney, Terry Whitehead, Dr Alan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Rowlands, Ted
Roy, Frank Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Ruane, Chris Wills, Michael
Ruddock, Joan Winnick, David
Ryan, Ms Joan Wood, Mike
Salter, Martin Woodward, Shaun
Sawford, Phil Woolas, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian Worthington, Tony
Sheerman, Barry Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Wyatt, Derek
Short, Rt Hon Clare
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Tellers for the Noes:
Singh, Marsha Mr. David Jamieson and
Skinner, Dennis Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to