MARRIED COUPLES ALLOWANCES

HC Deb 18 July 2000 vol 354 cc280-300

'The Chancellor of the Exchequer may by order introduce regulations to provide for increases in personal tax allowances to recognise married couples. Orders made under this section may only be made if a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.'.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and myself, refers to marriage. I do not know whether. you have received the married couples allowance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If so, like millions of people in the country, you will have been sent a document in the past few weeks which consists of explanatory notes and a form that must be filled in if one is to claim children's tax credit. It states: The Children's Tax Credit is replacing the Married Couple's Allowance and the Additional Person Allowance. Are you likely to have a child under 16 living with you during the tax year starting on 6 April 2001? If yes, you may be able to claim Children's Tax Credit. I suspect that you are a normal citizen, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have a child under 16, but the important point is that there are a heck of a lot of people in this country who do not have a child under 16. To say that the children's tax credit is replacing the married couples allowance is untrue, inaccurate and a distortion of what the Government intend. I am not sure whether it is spin or underspin but, whatever it is, that statement is wrong.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the form, which is a document about marriage, insists on referring to one's "partner"? May I put it to him that many married women do not wish to be referred to as partners because they are married and have taken on the responsibility of a lifelong union to look after the children for whom the allowance is supposed to be paid? Is it not about time that people had enough respect for married women to refer to them as married, not partners, which can involve all kinds of arrangement, many of which are not the sort that my wife and many other wives wish to enter into?

Mr. Ottaway

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The form goes far too far in political correctness. We have seen too much of that sort of stuff. As I happen to know my right hon. Friend's wife, I know that she would be offended by being described as a partner.

Mr. Gummer

Did my hon. Friend notice the grins on the faces of Labour Members, especially those on the Front Bench, when he mentioned that many women do not share their loose attitudes towards marriage?

Mr. Ottaway

rose—

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) must deal with one intervention before he takes the next, if he wants to do so.

Mr. Ottaway

I will give way, but I will first answer the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I have some respect for the Paymaster General and the Economic Secretary, who are sitting on the Front Bench; whether they wish to be described as a partner is entirely a matter for them.

Dawn Primarolo

My objection is to being called a loose women. I am married and I consider my husband to be my partner—my partner in life. The suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was out of order. I am sure that he would like to correct the impression that he gave to women of his attitude towards them.

Mr. Ottaway

I do not want to get caught in the crossfire. If the House does not mind, I shall move on.

The deception of replacing the married couples allowance with the children's tax credit will hit millions of families very hard. Until April, every married couple was in receipt of £197 a year. That money is lost. Indeed, there is a gap between the two provisions because the children's tax credit does not come into effect until next year.

Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)

If the former married couples allowance was such a great idea—it was of course available to people who were not married but had children and lived together—why did the hon. Gentleman's Government reduce it in two stages to 20 per cent. and then 15 per cent? Are not this Government continuing that process? Does he not endorse the approach that his Government took?

Mr. Ottaway

Whatever level the allowance got to, the important point is that the principle of marriage was recognised in the tax and benefits system. We undertake to maintain that, unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, which has, effectively, undermined the concept of marriage.

Until April, one earner on a salary of £34,000 a year would have paid income tax last year at 23 per cent. and this year at 22 per cent., but the abolition of the married couples allowance has taken that person into the higher tax band. The House may not be aware that if one is in the higher tax band, one does not qualify for children' tax credit. We estimate that more than 1 million people in the higher rate tax band will not be entitled to the children's tax credit even if they have children under the age of 16. So, people will not qualify because they are paying too much tax and are being moved into different tax bands.

The replacement system is an utterly inadequate form of compensation. That is why, when the Conservatives win the next election, we will reintroduce recognition of marriage in the system by reintroducing the married couples allowance. We shall do so for two reasons. First, we think that there are benefits to society from marriage. Families are where society starts and ends. Family breakdown weakens a free and ordered society. Parents do their best for their children in a wide range of circumstances, but, in general, children from two-parent families do better at school, have better chances in life and are less likely to end up ensnared in crime. Two-parent families are better units if the parents are married.

The Government should not discriminate against the one institution that has been shown to help families stick together and help the process of raising children: marriage. The Government have attacked marriage; they have abolished the married couples allowance and discriminated against couples in the structure of the working families tax credit. That is why we are pledged to recognise the benefits of marriage in the tax system.

Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

7.15 pm

Mr. Ottaway

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Secondly, we make the pledge to reintroduce the married couples allowance because of the defects in the children's tax credit. Two earners who live together and both earn £30,000 a year, with a household income of £60,000 a year, will qualify for the children's tax credit. Yet, one earner on £40,000 a year will not do so. What logic is there to that?

The second anomaly in the children's tax credit is its ineffectiveness as a benefit. The Financial Secretary said in Committee: We have increased substantially support for families with children through the working families tax credit, through the increase in the children's premium income support and through child benefit.—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 23 May 2000; c. 333.] The Minister failed to say that the payment of £8 a week in children's tax credit is substantially reduced by the impact of the working families tax credit and housing and council tax benefits.

I am obliged to Mr. Roger Cockfield, reader in taxation at De Montfort university, Leicester, who has sent me copies of the model that he has compiled. He has demonstrated that a lone parent with two young children earning £180 a week—someone working for 12 hours at, say, £15 an hour is not an unusual example—faces a loss of £5.33 in housing benefit and £1.70 in council tax benefit when he or she receives £8.50 of children's tax credit. He or she is only £1.27 better off—not the £8.50 claimed.

The children's tax credit is no substitute. It is available to the better off but not to the poorer people in our society. I was always under the impression that a Labour Government were there to protect the poorer people rather than to give tax breaks to the better off. If anything illustrates why they are losing support in their heartlands, it is much trumpeted measures such as the children's tax credit, which goes not to the poorer people but to the better off.

The form sent in the past few weeks to families who used to receive married couples allowance also contains the following sentence: If you are likely to have a child under 16 living with you during the tax year— it goes on to describe the tax year— you may be able to claim the Children's Tax Credit. If not, please throw this form away and accept our apologies for troubling you. Do not return blank forms to us.

I do not know how many blank forms might have been sent back, but I conclude by reading a letter that was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, No. 11 Downing street from a gentleman in Merseyside. It reads: Dear Sir, Please find enclosed my claim form for Children's tax credit returned as my wife and I do not meet the criteria required. Like millions of similar couples, i.e. children grown up and gone, and not 65 before 5th April 2000, we feel that you have, dare I say, stealthily, removed the acknowledgement by the Government of the merits of being married. How you have the audacity to claim that that Children's Tax credit replaces the married couple's allowance and Additional Personal Allowance amazes me. I will be 65 in December this year, and as a result of your 1999 Budget changes, I, since April of this year, now pay approx. £20 per month tax on my modest company pension, and when I reach 65 I will be further taxed on my old age pension, unlike my elder brother, who is one of the privileged pensioners that you have created, i.e. 65 before 5th April 2000 who still retains the Married Couple's allowance. Hon. Members might think that that letter came from a Conservative party supporter—Labour Members are nodding their heads. They think they know what the letter says because it was sent to No. 11. However, it concludes: I find that as a lifelong socialist, an ex Labour party member, with a son who is a Labour councillor, that your new Tax changes are totally unacceptable, and unless some revision to these Fagin-like measures is made in this year's Budget, then my vote will go elsewhere. I can think of nothing else that better shows why the Government are losing support. They sit there like rabbits stuck in the headlights, watching the on-coming change in the political direction of this country which such proposed measures will cause. The Conservative party's tax system will provide benefits for rich and poor, because we are the party of one-nation conservatism. We shall stand up for the Mr. Speakmans of this world. We will not say that a tax credit is worth £8.50, when it is in fact worth £1.27.

Mr. Chisholm

I was tempted to speak because, during an earlier debate, those on the Conservative Front Bench referred to previous practice, as discussed when we first raised the issue when considering the 1994 Finance Bill. During the Division, I was able to read an interesting speech that the current shadow Chancellor made then, in which he justified taking more than £1 billion out of the married couples allowance. I invite Conservative Members to read that speech, as well as the previous one that I made, in which I said: Everyone knows that families have suffered most in tax terms over the lifetime of the Conservative Government.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A,22 February 1994; c. 345.] I was particularly referring to families with children. It is precisely their problems that the current Government have been reversing during the past three years.

It is a simple fact that no additional costs are associated with marriage, but that many additional costs are associated with having children. That is why the children's tax credit, the working families tax credit and the record rise in child benefit have been introduced. People outside the House are more interested in targeting support on children, which is the Government's priority, rather than trying to make spurious party political capital out of the small sums that were involved in the married couples allowance.

Mr. Edward Davey

The new clause is interesting not because it would introduce a married couples allowance, but because it would change the procedures of the House. We normally scrutinise tax provisions through primary legislation, such as the Finance Bill. However, under the new clause, we are asked to give the Treasury the power to vary or change income tax allowances by regulation, rather than by primary legislation. That is an interesting idea, but I am surprised that the Conservatives have proposed it. They usually want to avoid secondary legislation and prevent Governments from trying to hide stealthy tax changes in statutory instruments.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)

Has the hon. Gentleman voted for or against any such measures since becoming a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Davey

I do not think that since I have been a Member the House has considered any such new clause, in which it is suggested that the Chancellor should be given the power to increase personal tax allowances. It is a very unusual new clause and I therefore began to wonder whether it represents a way to change the financial procedures of the House. Many right hon. and hon. Members will know that I take a particular interest in such matters because I believe that the House does not do its job properly. The Finance Bill procedure and the estimates and supply procedures are very inadequate.

There are arguments for changing procedures in the way proposed in the new clause. Many hon. Members have already said that this Finance Bill is one of the longest in history and that that does not help the way in which the House scrutinises detailed financial legislation. Today and tomorrow, the House will debate many Government amendments and new clauses but they will not be given the scrutiny that they deserve, given that they involve significant changes. The House has become too used to dealing with detailed tax legislation on the hoof, very quickly and not properly.

It is time that we changed that process, and perhaps the new clause represents a way of doing so. It would certainly reduce the content of future Finance Bills—perhaps Delegated Legislation Committees should deal with more tax legislation. Perhaps there would be proper scrutiny if individual Committees considered each change to tax legislation. That would certainly push the remainder of the Government's tax proposals into other legislation. I hope that such legislation could be debated in draft form, and perhaps Select Committees could take evidence on it.

Such measures could be dealt with in a more leisurely way than the Finance Bill must be proceeded with because of the need to provide the Inland Revenue with statutory cover for taxes. We should separate that requirement—the need to provide statutory cover for the way the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise go about their business—from the technical changes that we see in so many different forms in this and many other Finance Bills. There is a need for such reform, but I do not necessarily think that the new clause provides the best way to do it.

I have suggested in previous debates that a small Finance Bill, which would cover the statutory requirements for collecting tax, should follow the Budget and that a tax technicalities Bill, which the House could take several months to pass, could also be introduced and, perhaps, considered by the other place, changing the current process. Such a Bill could be given proper scrutiny. That would be my preferred way to reform our financial procedures, but perhaps the new clause represents another way to do so. Having expressed surprise that the Conservatives tabled the new clause, I do not think it represents a bad route to follow and perhaps we should experiment with it.

Whether the Liberal Democrats would use the power suggested in the new clause would depend on the regulations that were proposed. We might do so if the allowance that the Conservatives, or the then Chancellor of whichever party, proposed under that legislation took proper care of children. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said, the prime need is to ensure that children living in families receive the necessary support. Perhaps the proposal would be as wide as the former married couples allowance package, which recognised that some people who were not married still needed support. As the Chancellor said—indeed, the shadow Chancellor mentioned it too when in government—many people who were not married received the former married couples allowance. Perhaps the Conservative proposal would mimic many of the characteristics of the old system. The Conservatives might want to propose a tax allowance that was paid not only to married couples. However, they have not proposed such a measure so we cannot decide whether we would support it.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), I am concerned about the motives behind the proposal. A good motive would be to focus on those elderly people on the cusp, who did not retire on whatever the date was, and therefore cannot continue to receive the married couples allowance. If the intention was to focus on their needs and the fact that they had been disadvantaged, that would be a good motive. The Conservatives sometimes suggest that theirs is the only party that supports marriage, but that is not a particularly helpful or mature approach. We should be less partisan and, frankly, less immature when discussing the welfare of families.

If we want to support marriage, there are many things that we could do, such as investing in services like Relate, which try to support and save marriages that may be breaking down. We should think about other ways to support families, perhaps considering how we recognise the role of Churches and other religious institutions in supporting families and marriage. Ideas like those would make a positive contribution to the debate.

7.30 pm

I do not believe that many people marry for tax reasons. Should we suggest that people marry for money? Is that the key message that the House wants to send? People should marry for love, not money. Perhaps the Conservatives are sending the wrong message.

Dawn Primarolo

You old softie.

Mr. Davey

As I am unmarried, my girl friend may not agree with the Paymaster General on that, but I am interested in hearing details of the Conservative proposals. I feel strongly about this matter. I lost my father when I was four. My mother was widowed, and cared for me and my two older brothers. Are the Conservatives saying that my widowed mother should not have benefited from an extra tax allowance? She was not married, and the new clause is not clear. Before the Conservatives get on their high horses about marriage, they need to flesh out their proposals with rather more detail. Would they penalise single parents, such as my widowed mother, rather than ensuring that she could benefit from extra tax allowances? I cannot believe that they would want that, but it sometimes sounds like it.

The new clause might serve some purpose in promoting reforms of our financial procedures. To that extent, the Liberal Democrats have no problem with it; it is time those matters were addressed. In supporting the new clause this evening, however, we will not be saying that we support the Conservative position, because it has not been properly spelled out.

Mr. Geraint Davies

I am pleased to speak briefly about the married couples allowance, partly because my good neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), would not allow me to intervene on him.

The new clause is completely incoherent. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the motivation for restoring the married couples allowance was not so much marriage as support for children in stable family relationships. Of course, the married couples allowance is not available to stable couples with children. It is available to married couples, often without children, or to single parents who are unmarried. That is completely inconsistent.

Mr. Ruffley

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies

In a moment.

The idea behind the allowance was support of children in marriage because, when it was introduced, the majority of those who had children were married. Relationships have changed, and many children are born out of wedlock. We must be even-handed about fiscal management, although I accept that, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, we ought to think of ways to encourage stable relationships and marriage.

Mr. Ruffley

rose—

Mr. Davies

I will give way in a moment.

The most important way to do that would be to provide the economic well-being and independence that would keep couples together. Break-ups are often motivated by economic despair. The Government have brought 1 million children out of poverty and away from the legacy of despair and family destruction inherited from the rag bag opposite—talking of which, I will now take the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Mr. Ruffley

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his typically graceless way. He said earlier that stable couples who were not married but had children received the married couples allowance. Would he like to correct himself? He should know that the additional personal allowance is what non-0married stable couples with children receive.

Mr. Davies

The hon. Gentleman's hearing seems to have failed him. He may check Hansard to find that I said that people in stable relationships with children are not eligible for the married couples allowance. That was one reason why we got rid of it. To be fair, however, I should make it clear that it was being gradually phased out by the Tories—which merely exposes their opportunist cynicism tonight. They are offering an off-the-cuff, uncosted proposal that does not mention the corollary of the abolition of the children's tax allowance. The policy is entirely un-thought-out and intended merely to provide an electoral opportunity, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South revealed at the end of his speech.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies

Not for a moment.

We appear to be talking about electoral bribery. That is extremely unfortunate. The Tory measure would cost £1.4 billion in 2000–01 and £1.85 billion the next year, and the cost would continue to rise. It is another example of the kind of expenditure cuts that we would face under a Conservative Administration. We have had a wider debate this afternoon, and the £2 billion or £3 billion that they propose to spend over two years would be taken away from the health service, the education system or other vital services for people in need. The money would be taken away from children to pay for tax cuts for the most well off—couples without children in which both partners earn. That would be quite wrong.

The married couples allowance was being phased out by the previous Administration, but the Tories have suggested that we should reintroduce it. Those who hear our debate will realise that the Labour Administration have lifted 1 million children out of poverty, have put 1 million more people in work and have provided a record increase in child benefit. I urge all hon. Members to resist this stupid new clause.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) who put his case very fairly, even if on odd occasions he indulged in rather vicious comments about what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) seeks to do for the Opposition.

I endorse what my hon. Friend said in his excellent presentation. His case would have been stronger, however, if he had apologised to the House and to the people of this country for the fact that the Conservative party began this process when we were in government. At the time, a number of us criticised reduction of the married couples allowance. Like my hon. Friend, I have no doubt that the marriage of a man and a woman committed to each other in a ceremony that all people take seriously can create the most stable environment for children to grow up in. Problems for society arising from such a registered union are likely to be less than those arising from the situation of single parents.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) also made a thoughtful speech, but I was surprised to hear him suggest that these matters should be debated and decided in the House of Lords. I should have thought that all matters relating to the amount of taxation levied on an individual or family—I still think that allowances have something to do with taxation—should be decided by the elected Chamber.

Like the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, I am not sure whether the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South should be decided by statutory instrument—secondary legislation. It is too important for that; it is a matter of serious philosophy. Should we encourage the formal presence of marriage, and because of the benefits that it brings society, should marriage be recognised through the allowance and tax system? I believe so.

I am saddened that the previous Government started the reduction in the married couples allowance. With respect, my hon. Friend's case would have been stronger if he had apologised for that and said that in the light of experience, we realised that we made a mistake. I believe that the people out there whom we represent in this House are prepared to forgive a party when it shows that it realises that it has made a mistake.

I accept the advice of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about children—their interests are absolutely vital. That does not mean, however, that this is an either/or situation. I believe that we could have both options. We could, where necessary, provide additional assistance for families and single parents with financial difficulties, while also recognising the estate of marriage as making a valuable contribution to the environment in which children grow up. The cost to the state when children do wrong and appear before the courts is likely to be less when children are brought up in a stable marriage.

I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who believes that marriage is very precious. I do not believe that marriage is often entered into lightly. The benefits to a civilised, stable society that emanate from marriage are very great indeed.

Mr. David Taylor

I am sure that many people in the House would agree with the hon. Gentleman—not least the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). However, some £190 a year is not a strong incentive for an unmarried couple to troop along to the nearest church or registry office. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that many hundreds of thousands of people will change their status because of that tax incentive? I fear not.

Mr. Winterton

My views differ from those of the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the country benefits from children being brought up within a stable married relationship, and that the cost to Government and society is likely to be much less when that is the case. I regret that the previous Government started the reduction in the married couples allowance. I would have preferred the allowance to have been much higher than it was. However, I accept that there might be a contrary view.

7.45 pm

As the hon. Gentleman said, I am married to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). She carries my name, so our outlook on these matters is very traditional, and there is nothing wrong in that. She shares my view that in a married family relationship, whether the husband and wife are married in a registry office or in a church—although I prefer the church service, as it is more solemn—the saving to society is greater than the total cost to the Exchequer of the married couples allowance, even at its original level before the previous Conservative and Unionist Government reduced it.

I regret that the present Government have gone the whole hog and abolished the allowance. What they have replaced it with is less beneficial, although I appreciate that they have sought to target assistance on those whom they perceive as having the greatest need. However, I think that the principle spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is sound. I am delighted that we have learned from our mistakes in our previous period in office. The allowance means a great deal to people, and has a significance far greater than its cost to the Exchequer. Therefore, I strongly support the new clause.

Mr. Ruffley

I am delighted to support the new clause. I do so for one simple reason—I believe that the family is an important part of the fabric of civil society, and needs to be supported and recognised in the British tax system.

I was interested to hear the contributions from Labour Members. The one word that they did not use was "extremist". This is obviously an example of a U-turn, because on 16 April the Chief Secretary to the Treasury described Conservative proposals for recognising marriage in the tax system as "extremist". What folly that turned out to be.

It was no accident, in my view, that in the leaked memorandum this week, of which we have heard so much, the Prime Minister described his policy on the family as weak. He was worried that the Government were looking weak on the family, and were hopeless at developing sensible policies to support the family.

The new clause would go some way towards helping the Prime Minister out. Were the Government to adopt it, the Prime Minister would be able to demonstrate beyond peradventure that he believes that the family is worth supporting. He would be able to use the simple and direct mechanism described in the new clause.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who has a high regard for parliamentary and legislative procedures, that it would be incorrect to introduce these measures through statutory instruments and orders? Can he justify why, under new clause 6, such changes would be made by order rather than in primary legislation?

Mr. Ruffley

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question should be clear to him; I am rather surprised that he bothered to ask it. He should scrutinise the proceedings of some of the Standing Committees on which I have had the pleasure, and sometimes the misfortune, to serve. Treasury orders of this kind are often to be found; our proposal is not especially unusual. I was rather surprised by the perplexity of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about that. It is a device that those on the Treasury Bench have used on many occasions.

To return to my original point, the Prime Minister has said that his Government's policy is weak on the family, and unconvincing and unappealing to the people of this country. He is quite right there. The new clause would remedy the defect in current Government policy.

Before Labour Members get to their feet in a desperate attempt to win brownie points with the Treasury Whip, let me tackle head on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about the reductions in the value of the married couples allowance under the previous Government. I remember it well. In the March 1993 Budget, the Chancellor, Norman Lamont—Lord Lamont as he is now—set in train a two-tranche reduction in the married couples allowance from the basic rate of 25 per cent. to 15 per cent. That is a matter of record. However, the then Conservative Government did not go on to abolish the allowance, as this Government have.

Why was the reduction in the MCA so necessary? It was an important part of deficit reduction. [Laughter.] The guffaws from the glove puppets on the Government Benches would lead one to think that they considered deficit reduction a bad thing—but it is a good thing. The Chancellor celebrated it today, and he is the proud heir and inheritor of the previous Government's sensible fiscal policies.

What was the attitude of today's Ministers to the sensible but limited deficit-reducing measures in 1993, which stopped at 15 per cent? The present Government have gone for the next 15 per cent. What was the record of the Paymaster General on the 1993 Finance Bill? I hope that she will tell us when she winds up.

I remind the House of the importance of the new clause in terms of the tax policy of the Conservative party. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear this week that the next Conservative Government will reintroduce recognition of marriage in the tax system. The Government have abolished it, and so have no claim to be the defenders of married couples and families.

One issue has angered pensioners in my constituency. My mailbag is full of letters from them—I should be surprised if Labour Members had not received similar letters—about a decision in the March 1999 Budget. The Chancellor gave the distinct impression that pensioners would continue to receive the married couples allowance. However, we had to find in the small print one thing that he did not spell out—that pensioners reaching the age of 65 after April 2000 would not get any married couples allowance. That meant that those individuals found themselves some £500 worse off when that 1999 Budget tax change took effect.

The Conservatives were not alone in being intelligent enough to read the small print. Help the Aged was on to the matter fairly rapidly. Mr. Mervyn Kohler of that organisation described the pernicious effect of the change on pensioners who reach the age of 65 this fiscal year: 600,000 people reach retirement age in a typical year … only a third of them exceed their personal allowances…. There will be quite a lot of rather cross people about when they realise they are affected, having planned on receiving the existing allowances. Whereas the Chancellor has been saying that he has lifted many older people out of paying taxes in previous Budgets, this could have the effect of putting many of them back into paying tax. This is very unfair because it is so arbitrary and it will squeeze the older generation. They are going to take a bit of a hammering. Many of my pensioner constituents who were 63 or 64 before the 1999 Budget change now realise that they will not get the £500 that they had counted on getting when they turned 65 this fiscal year. I have had many letters to that effect.

Mr. Geraint Davies

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ruffley

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I may reconsider if he has something sensible to say. He rarely has.

Mr. Mervyn Kohler said that pensioners would take a hammering, and many of. my pensioner constituents felt that they had been hammered by the Government, especially by the abolition of the married couples allowance. They had no warning or notice of the change, as Lady Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said when she described how pensioners in their early 60s would have woken one morning to find out what was in the 1999 Budget.

Lady Greengross did say: We welcome the fact that those already 65 will not lose the allowance…, but it was a rather limited welcome, as she went on to make it clear that she wanted the measure to be phased in for people who will not get the allowance when they reach 65 this year. The argument for some transitional relief for people turning 60 was rather callously ignored by the Chancellor. He has not rethought things, and as a result many pensioners in many constituencies are very aggrieved.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

One of my great concerns about what happened to people in the situation described by my hon. Friend is that the change, which they had not anticipated, occurred too late to allow them to make alternative financial arrangements to ensure that the quality and standard of their lives were not adversely affected. That is why I support my hon. Friend in his contention about transitional arrangements.

Mr. Ruffley

My hon. Friend has made my day. I am supported by Help the Aged, by Age Concern, and now by him. I could want for nothing more.

Labour Members have made no attempt to answer those important points in the debate. Age Concern and Help the Aged say that the change is a problem, and Labour Members who read their mail agree. It ill behoves them to smirk and grin and ignore the point. The Paymaster General owes the House an answer when she winds up.

Mr. Geraint Davies

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that any change in the tax system will be unplanned, in the sense that before the Chancellor stands at the Dispatch Box, no one knows what he will say? People plan for the world to go on as before. Does not the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that his is a rather silly argument?

Mr. Ruffley

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be applauded in his constituency by Age Concern and Help the Aged when he refers to their arguments as silly, misplaced or misguided. Old people are vulnerable. They do not have large incomes, and we believe that they are a special case, as do Help the Aged and Age Concern.

Mr. David Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1980, when he might still have been in primary school? Then, the Administration of the lady now known as Lady Thatcher perpetrated one of the meanest acts of their 18 years in office. They broke the link between pensions and pay in the economy. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that showed due regard to a vulnerable group?

Mr. Ruffley

This Labour Government have never said that they would reintroduce that link. There is a good reason for that. Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security in the House of Lords, has said that if the link were restored now it would cost £25 billion by 2025. Not even this profligate Chancellor would be able to find that sort of money, which is why the Government have not decided to restore the link. The hon. Gentleman should know his party policy before he intervenes in that way.

Non-pensioners have also lost their married couples allowance to the value of some £200 a year plus. Added to the other stealth taxes—the petrol tax, the personal pension tax, and increases in council tax—the net result is that the average hard-working family is £670 worse off. That is the tax bill they face. The abolition of the married couples allowance is part of that £670. It is for that reason, and the other reasons that I have adduced, that I strongly support new clause 6, and I urge hon. Members to support it.

8 pm

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I shall not detain the House long, because the matter has been well aired by my hon. Friends and by Labour Members. Strangely enough, I share the view of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) that changes in the married couples allowance such as that made in the last Budget are unlikely to have any measurable effect on the incentive to marry. Indeed, it would pose profound questions about the nature of marriage if they were an incentive.

Nevertheless, I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). This matter has a symbolic importance that rises well above the issue of how much the allowance may be worth.

The attraction of the new clause is the speedy remedy that it provides. Previously, married people enjoyed a tax allowance that they no longer enjoy. In other words, there is now a tax on marriage.

Mr. David Taylor

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Swayne

No, I will not give way. The matter is fairly straightforward.

Mr. Taylor

On that very point.

Mr. Swayne

No, not on that point. I will not give way.

Mr. Taylor

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that he is not giving way.

Mr. Swayne

I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion. For those of us who disapprove of the new penalty on marriage, the clause would provide a speedy remedy. It is obvious that the Government will shortly be sent packing, and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take their place. They will readily use this new clause to remedy the matter.

Dawn Primarolo

Those who watch and listen to the debates in the House will be greatly saddened by some of the contributions that have been made this evening. Value judgments have been made on those who choose to marry, whether in a civil ceremony or a church service, and on those couples who make a lifelong commitment to each other as partners, but who do not choose to marry. The debate is not about whether we are in favour of marriage or a commitment of individuals to each other: it is about a tax relief, and it needs to be set in that context.

I applaud the honesty of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in saying that he opposed everything that the Conservative Government did when they were in power—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is too keen; I was not going to make a sweeping claim on his behalf. He opposed the Conservative Government when they reduced the married couples allowance. In all honesty, I cannot remember how he voted on that issue. When the Conservative Government were in power, the number of children living in families in poverty rose to 3 million; that is what his party presided over. It now tells us that it is committed to marriage and to stable relationships, whether in a legal or a church ceremony.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

I want to clarify my position. I am sure that the Paymaster General will accept that during my short speech, I said that additional steps could be taken if it were necessary to help children in families in difficult financial circumstances. I wanted both the married couples allowance and, if necessary, additional help for children from families in difficult financial circumstances.

Dawn Primarolo

I noted the hon. Gentleman's bid for more money, and I shall come back to that. He is quite right; he acknowledged that point.

I want to put it clearly on the record that in my opinion, a commitment to a stable relationship or a marriage is reward in its own right, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said. The idea that a financial incentive in the tax system would encourage people to many and would provide a good, sound basis for a stable relationship shows little respect for the institution of marriage, because it does not fully recognise the commitment that is made.

Mr. Burnett

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo

I shall give way, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall then explain why this allowance has never been about marriage: it is about taxable capacity.

Mr. Burnett

I sincerely hope that the Paymaster General will assure the House that this measure is not a precursor to the abolition of inter-spouse exemption for inheritance tax purposes, which was established by the Labour party when it introduced capital transfer tax in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.

Dawn Primarolo

The hon. Gentleman is ever vigilant about the Government's possible future plans. I shall not stray beyond the new clause before us.

We need to be reminded that the origin of the married couples allowance was the married man's allowance, which was meant to recognise a reduced taxable capacity when a man acquired a wife to support. Marriage is no longer the point at which taxable capacity is reduced; many couples continue to work. Taxable capacity is now reduced when children arrive and one partner reduces or gives up work, or the marriage or partnership faces the challenge of funding child care. It is right that the Government should shift support to the point at which that occurs, and should concentrate on the existence of children in that family unit. That is what the children's tax credit does. It is right to support the family with a child whatever their circumstances. It is important to invest in children, and to improve their life chances.

We need to provide equivalent relief to one-parent families for many reasons. The parent may be bereaved or may have been deserted by the partner. A child needs to be fed whatever the circumstances of his or her conception. The old married couples allowance recognised that, as did the additional personal allowance. The children's tax credit recognises unmarried couples, as did the additional personal allowance introduced by the Conservative party. This is not about political correctness: it is a practical matter of preventing unmarried couples from getting more generous treatment than married couples. That can be avoided by using tapers and by preventing them from having two credits.

The rules for additional personal allowance introduced by the Conservatives in 1988 covered exactly the same point as is now covered by the children's tax credit. The argument that this proposal is a departure in our tax rules from recognising only married couples to recognising unmarried couples is spurious.

Mr. Ottaway

The Minister annunciated the benefits of the children's tax credit. Will she acknowledge that, in calculating that credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit are deducted?

Dawn Primarolo

The children's tax credit is a tax relief and it is paid within the tax system. The hon. Gentleman is confusing it with working families tax credit.

Mr. Ottaway

I am not confused in the least. It is a fact that a lone parent working for 12 hours at £15 an hour, which is a perfectly normal situation, faces a loss of £5.33 in housing benefit and £1.70 in council tax benefit when he or she receives £8.50 of children's tax credit. In other words, that person is only £1.27 a week better off, not £8.50, as the Minister claims.

Dawn Primarolo

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the position when the couple have an increased income because the amount of tax has gone down and there is a taper on any housing or council tax benefit. If they are on those benefits, they will have an income that is low enough to qualify them for working families tax credit, so the changes in the premiums in that credit will address those points.

Conservative Members who were in the previous Government have selective amnesia about how much they reduced the value of the married couples allowance. For instance, in 1994–95, they reduced it by £83.25; in 1995–96, by £83.75; and in 1996–97, by £85.25. They removed it from the position in which it affected whether reliefs were given.

Under the previous Administration, the married couples allowance was cut first to 20 per cent. and then to 15 per cent. Some taxpayers began to pay an extra £8 a week as a result of those changes. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Fortino), who was then Chief Secretary, said that the married couples allowance was the "most anomalous of allowances" with "no on-going justification".

We agree with the right hon. Gentleman, although he apparently no longer agrees with himself. We have abolished the married couples allowance for under-65s from 6 April 2000, not because we do not support marriage, but because the allowance was not supporting marriage. When a couple can get twice the tax relief for splitting up that they could get for staying together, Opposition Members must explain how that is support for marriage.

We have a better approach. We are investing in our future by providing more financial support for all families with children. Families face their greatest financial pressure when they have children. We have made record increases in child benefit—35 per cent.—which the Conservative party froze. We have introduced the working families tax credit to support hard-working families. We have increased the credits by another £4.35 a week from last month. We have increased income support for the poorest families. The working families tax credit will give families more money, and over the lifetime of this Parliament, about 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) spoke about the claim form. The form is clear and expressed in neutral terms to cover both married and unmarried couples. The children's tax credit covers both, to ensure that married couples do not get less relief. It was the Conservative party that introduced, in the additional personal allowance, the rules to cover unmarried couples.

8.15 pm

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the form is overkill. The Inland Revenue does not hold details of children in families, so we needed to send the forms out to get to the people who had received married couples allowance and the additional personal allowance and who might be eligible. We wanted to ensure that they understood their entitlement and were alerted that they should claim it.

The hon. Gentleman said that the children's tax credit was unfair to single-earner families. That is the effect of independent taxation. Single-earner couples will tend to pay more than two-earner couples on the same family income, because one uses one set of allowances and rate bands. We are trying to address that anomaly, which the Conservative party helped to create, in the integrated child credit.

Now Conservative Members say that the taper is unfair, but we think that it is right that we should get the maximum benefit to those on the lowest incomes. They then say that 100,000 people will pay higher rate tax as a result of the changes. That is simply not true. Nobody will be brought into a higher rate of tax as a result of the abolition of the married couples allowance—unlike the 200,000 people who became higher rate taxpayers when the Conservative party cut the value of the married couples allowance to 20 per cent. in 1994–95.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South says that the benefits of the children's tax credit do not get through to the families that really need them, such as those on working families tax credit. Again, he is wrong. It is not true. He ignores the fact that the child rate in the working families tax credit was raised in October 1999 to take account of the interaction between that credit and the children's tax credit, and the child credit for under-16s was raised again, by £4.35, from June 2000, on top of the indexation from April 2000. It is simply wrong to create the illusion that the money is not going to those who really need it.

The new clause asks for rather odd things. It asks for powers to make regulations. Why does the Chancellor need powers to make regulations about tax allowances when he has at least an annual opportunity, in the Finance Bill, to make any changes that he wants, with the proper scrutiny of the House? In any case, what is to stop the Chancellor introducing another Finance Bill in a year? The Chancellor already has the power to make regulations.

Conservative Members have revealed how out of touch and confused they are about how people organise their lives and bring up their children. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the new clause and ensure that the Government's sound policies for tackling child poverty, directing resources to the families who need it most, can continue.

Mr. Ottaway

We tabled the new clause not for those reasons, but because of the deception being practised on the people of this country when the Government say that the children's tax credit replaces the married couples allowance. It does not replace that allowance, and millions of people will not receive it. Many will suffer financial loss as a result of the Government's proposals.

For the Minister to say that the poorest people in our society are getting the entire benefit of the children's tax credit is plain misleading. Housing and council tax benefit have to be taken into account. The poorest people in our society will not get the funding that she says they will get. That is why we want to divide the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 289.

Division No. 276]	[8.19 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Horam, John
Arness, David	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Beggs, Roy	Jenkin, Bernard
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Keetch, Paul
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Key, Robert
Bercow, John	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Body, Sir Richard	Kirkwood, Archy
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Brake, Tom	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brazier, Julian	Letwin, Oliver
Breed, Colin	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	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	Loughton, Tim
Burstow, Paul	Luff, Peter
Butterfill, John	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cash, William	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Chope, Christopher	Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Clappison, James	McLoughlin, Patrick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Madel, Sir David
Collins, Tim	Major, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Malins, Humfrey
Cotter, Brian	Maples, John
Cran, James	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Curry, Rt Hon David	May, Mrs Theresa
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Norman, Archie
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Donaldson, Jeffrey	Öpik, Lembit
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Ottaway, Richard
Evans, Nigel	Paice, James
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Paterson, Owen
Faber, David	Prior, David
Fabricant, Michael	Randall, John
Fallon, Michael	Rendel, David
Fearn, Ronnie	Robathan, Andrew
Flight, Howard	Robertson, Laurence
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Foster, Don (Bath)	Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Fraser, Christopher	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Garnier, Edward	Ruffley, David
George, Andrew (St lves)	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Gibb, Nick	St Aubyn, Nick
Gill, Christopher	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Shepherd, Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Gorrie, Donald	Soames, Nicholas
Green, Damian	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Greenway, John	Spicer, Sir Michael
Grieve, Dominic	Spring, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Steen, Anthony
Hammond, Philip	Streeter, Gary
Hancock, Mike	Stunell, Andrew
Harvey, Nick	Swayne, Desmond
Hawkins, Nick	Syms, Robert
Hayes, John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Heald, Oliver	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Taylor, Sir Teddy

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Wilkinson, John
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Willetts, David
Townend, John	Willis, Phil
Tredinnick, David	Wilshire, David
Trend, Michael	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tyrie, Andrew	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Viggers, Peter	Yeo, Tim
Waterson, Nigel	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Webb, Steve
Whitney, Sir Raymond	Tellers for the Ayes:
Whittingdale, John	Mr. Stephen Day and
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd	Mr. Keith Simpson.

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Crausby, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Alexander, Douglas	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Allen, Graham	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Ashton, Joe	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Atkins, Charlotte	Darvill, Keith
Austin, John	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Banks, Tony	Davidson, Ian
Barnes, Harry	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Barron, Kevin	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Battle, John	Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Dawson, Hilton
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Dismore, Andrew
Benton, Joe	Dobbin, Jim
Bermingham, Gerald	Doran, Frank
Berry, Roger	Drew, David
Betts, Clive	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Blackman, Liz	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Blizzard, Bob	Edwards, Huw
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Borrow, David	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Fisher, Mark
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bradshaw, Ben	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Fyfe, Maria
Browne, Desmond	Gardiner, Barry
Buck, Ms Karen	Gerrard, Neil
Burden, Richard	Gibson, Dr Ian
Burgon, Colin	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Butler, Mrs Christine	Godsiff, Roger
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Casale, Roger	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Caton, Martin	Grocott, Bruce
Cawsey, Ian	Grogan, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Gunnell, John
Chaytor, David	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clapham, Michael	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hanson, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Healey, John
Clelland, David	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clwyd, Ann	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Coaker, Vernon	Hepburn, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann	Heppell, John
Cohen, Harry	Hesford, Stephen
Coleman, Iain	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Colman, Tony	Hinchliffe, David
Connarty, Michael	Home Robertson, John
Corbett, Robin	Hood, Jimmy
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cousins, Jim	Howells, Dr Kim
Cox, Tom	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cranston, Ross	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Humble, Mrs Joan	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hurst, Alan	O'Hara, Eddie
Hutton, John	Olner, Bill
Iddon, Dr Brian	O'Neill, Martin
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Jenkins, Brian	Palmer, Dr Nick
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Pearson, Ian
	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Pollard, Kerry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Pond, Chris
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Pope, Greg
	Pound, Stephen
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Powell, Sir Raymond
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Keeble, Ms Sally	Primarolo, Dawn
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Prosser, Gwyn
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Purchase, Ken
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Khabra, Piara S	Quinn, Lawrie
Kidney, David	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Kilfoyle, Peter	Rammell, Bill
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Rapson, Syd
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Lammy, David	Rooney, Terry
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Rowlands, Ted
Laxton, Bob	Roy, Frank
Lepper, David	Ruane, Chris
Leslie, Christopher	Ruddock, Joan
Levitt, Tom	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Salter, Martin
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)	Savidge, Malcolm
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Sawford, Phil
Linton, Martin	Sedgemore, Brian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Shaw, Jonathan
Lock, David	Sheerman, Barry
McAllion, John	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McAvoy, Thomas	Shipley, Ms Debra
McCabe, Steve	Short, Rt Hon Clare
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)	Skinner, Dennis
	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McFall, John	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Snape, Peter
McIsaac, Shona	Soley, Clive
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Southworth, Ms Helen
Mackinlay, Andrew	Steinberg, Gerry
McNamara, Kevin	Stevenson, George
McNulty, Tony	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
MacShane, Denis	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
McWalter, Tony	Stinchcombe, Paul
McWilliam, John	Stoate, Dr Howard
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Stringer, Graham
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Martlew, Eric	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Merron, Gillian	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Temple-Morris, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Miller, Andrew	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mitchell, Austin	Timms, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Todd, Mark
Moran, Ms Margaret	Trickett, Jon
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Truswell, Paul
Morley, Elliot	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mudie, George	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Mullin, Chris	Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tynan, Bill	Winnick, David
Vaz, Keith	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Vis, Dr Rudi	Woodward, Shaun
Walley, Ms Joan	Woolas, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire	Worthington, Tony
Wareing, Robert N	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Watts, David	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
White, Brian	Wyatt, Derek
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
	Tellers for the Noes:
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)	Mr. Don Touhig and
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)	Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.