HC Deb 01 July 2003 vol 408 cc234-48
Mr. Stephen O'Brien

I beg to move amendment No. 3, page 6, line 22, leave out "15" and insert "5".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 8, at end insert less the amount of value added tax paid or payable by the person on those payments". Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. O'Brien

If proof were needed that there was no need for the knife to have fallen, the point of order made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) provided it. It is well known that I was deeply opposed to the timetable. Given the progress that we are making, it would have been possible to cover all the new clauses.

The amendments relate to bingo duty. Hon. Members will recall the extended debate on the issue in the Committee of the whole House. We highlighted a number of serious shortcomings and a complete mismatch between the Chancellor's rhetoric in his Budget speech and the Government's actions in the Finance Bill.

Our amendments have a common aim: to put in law the Chancellor's promises to all bingo players in this country. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said: I turn now to bingo. I will abolish the bingo tax … just as I have abolished direct taxes on the pools and on betting on horse racing. The phrase "just as I have" was clearly intended to give bingo players and clubs a promise from the Government. The Government successfully created the expectation among all those interested in bingo—the providers or the millions who play the game—that there was to be direct equivalence. The Chancellor continued: The tax on bingo players' stakes and the tax on bingo prizes will be replaced in the same way as the tax on betting and the pools."—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 278.] When the Chancellor used language such as "just as I have" and "will be replaced in the same way", were not bingo players and clubs right to think that he intended to create an expectation that there would be direct equivalence? Indeed, that expectation was built up well before the Budget speech, when the bingo industry and players were led to believe, from discussions with Customs and Excise, that the tax system would make participation fees VAT exempt and that the new gross profits tax would be levied at 15 per cent., "just as", or in the same way as for betting and the pools.

It is with the deepest regret—although, unfortunately, it is no surprise with this Chancellor—that we find that the Chancellor has not lived up to the words in his Budget speech. The Finance Bill made it clear not only that VAT would remain but that it would not be treated as expenditure in the GPT calculation, which will result in double taxation. Faced with that reality, the bingo industry will not be able to meet players' expectations of increased prizes. That deliberate and intended consequence shows that the Chancellor's actions are the opposite of his words.

Amendment No. 1 would remove the double taxation. It would not be necessary if the Government lived up to their promises and introduced an amendment to make participation fees VAT exempt. The House will appreciate that I am not permitted to table such an amendment, but the Government could easily address the matter. I note that the Government have tabled a similar amendment—amendment No. 4—clearly prompted by my call on the Floor of the House on 13 May.

When the Government tabled the amendments and issued the Treasury press release, they claimed all sorts of wonderful things for bingo, but we can show that their words do not match their deeds. Frankly, that would be too much to expect. Indeed, it never happens. No credit whatsoever is given to parliamentary procedure, to accountability or, of course, to Her Majesty's official Opposition, who have pressed the point to the extent that, with deep embarrassment, the Government have had to admit to the fact that they have failed to live up to their promises.

I welcome Government amendment No. 4, and I am delighted that the Economic Secretary has been persuaded by my arguments. If the Government assure me that they will move their amendment, I will be able to seek the leave of the House to withdraw amendment No. 1, but, yet again, I will have to wait to hear whether Ministers can live up to their words. I will have to wait to see whether the Economic Secretary moves that amendment.

I also tabled a second amendment, amendment No. 3, which is tied to the fact that I am not permitted to table an amendment to make participation fees VAT exempt. The reason I am not allowed to do so is plain for all to see: such matters have, in effect, been delegated to the European Union, and we cannot hold the Government to account about them on the Floor of the House.

The Chancellor created an expectation that the bingo industry would be put on a level playing field with the rest of the gaming industry and suffer an effective GPT rate of 15 per cent., with VAT-exempt participation fees. I understand that, as participation fees remain liable to VAT, the net VAT cost to the bingo industry is approximately 10 per cent. Under amendment No. 3, we would reduce the GPT rate to 5 per cent., so the effective rate of tax would be kept at 15 per cent.

Amendment No. 3 is less elegant than simply making participation fees VAT exempt, and I trust that, as with double taxation, the Economic Secretary will be similarly persuaded by my arguments and will agree to make participation fees VAT exempt. That is entirely within his gift; I cannot do it, but I can certainly introduce my amendment, which would have the same effect. Why deal with the issue in a more difficult way when it is in the Government's gift to ensure that things happen in the most appropriate, straightforward and elegant way that would be easily understood by all bingo players throughout the country, as well as the clubs themselves?

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has shown in this matter. Until yesterday, I was the shadow Minister with responsibility for gambling—I had been for some time—and I can tell him that the bingo industry is deeply annoyed and angry at the way in which the Government have treated it over this issue. However, may I clarify what he is saying? He says that he cannot commit the Conservative party to a VAT exemption, but is he saying that it is our policy to ensure that there would be tax equalisation between bingo and other forms of gambling, because that would certainly be a worthy aim that this country's 7 million bingo players would deeply appreciate?

Mr. O'Brien

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I know that he takes a tremendous interest in and supports not only the bingo industry, but all the gaming industries, which are so important to constituents throughout the country.

I am sure that my hon. Friend followed the technical position in relation to the Finance Bill: as members of Her Majesty's Opposition, it is not in our terms of reference, or in the Standing Orders, to table amendments that adjust VAT rates, so we have had to look for an alternative. By doing so, we are seeking to ensure that the Chancellor lives up to his promise, which was the bingo industry's incentive to move from GPT to bingo tax, as that may happen with the consent of pools and betting on horse racing, but against the express wishes of the bingo industry. To get those in the bingo industry to agree, they were promised a level playing field.

We have to hold the Chancellor to account for his words. I am waiting for the Government to deliver. It is up to them to find the resources to match their promises with the deeds on taxation that they should have implemented in the first place. If they do the honourable thing and step up to their promises rather than having to be dragged inch by inch in such an appalling way, we will inherit that position after the next general election. We have absolutely no intention of changing that position if the Government live up to their promises.

The Economic Secretary might well argue that the Government's measures deliver benefits to the bingo industry worth £35 million. He might also argue that the bingo industry will always want more, but every industry would. He might argue that the Government must make difficult decisions on the scope and size of tax cuts and draw the line, but that misses the point. The Chancellor's Budget speech raised the expectation of a level playing field with the rest of the gaming industry. Indeed, the expectations of the industry and bingo players were raised before the speech was made. The line was drawn before and during the Budget speech but, as has happened so often during consideration of the Bill, the Government moved the line.

When I moved an amendment to implement my call for the removal of double taxation at a benefit of £10 million per annum, the Treasury issued a press release saying that the tax reforms will now mean around £125 million a year more in prizes or other player benefits". That raised false expectations. It is fair to note the fourth note to editors in the press release, which said that the reform will mean half a million more visits to bingo clubs, and a £30 million increase in the industry's profits in 2007. It was interesting to read the bingo industry's reaction, because it had rightly been involved in negotiations with the Government. That is no surprise because the Government's technique is to try to get anyone who is about to criticise them into new Labour's big tent by saying, "Come and have a chat with us. Don't get offside because if you start to get too difficult we will not be able to deliver anything because we cannot stand up to that."

The Government claimed that a £10 million boost would deliver £125 million of benefits, but an article written by Susie Mesure, which was published in The Independent on 20 June, said: Sir Peter Fry, the chairman of the Bingo Association, said: `You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that a net saving of £35m won't give £125m in extra prizes yet that is the impression that is being given. There is no way the £125m in extra prizes can be claimed in anything like the near future. The article continued: While Sir Peter acknowledged that an additional £10m was helpful, he said the Treasury's suggestion that this would create £125m in extra prizes was false. 'This will cause aggravation among bingo members', he said. Not to make it clear that the extra £125m would not happen today but was years off happening was rather naughty.'"— I think that he was exceptionally measured and that he pulled his punches by saying that. It is clear that the Treasury's intention was to try to see off the industry but not to give it the level playing field promised by the Chancellor.

It is an absolute outrage that we have had to table an amendment and drag the Government along kicking and screaming—I fear that they will scream rather than kick their proposal into touch and adopt ours, although I would be jolly glad if they did. I do not anticipate that they will do that because they cannot bring themselves to accept that there is some democracy in this country and that there is a purpose of having an official Opposition who can spot when the Government are playing fast and loose. It is time for them to step up to meet their promises.

It is critical that the Government accept the amendments. The mention of bingo in the Budget speech gave the Chancellor his only opportunity to make a joke—it fell completely flat—and he raised expectations. I call on him to live up to his promises and create a level playing field for the bingo industry, rather than playing with numbers and bingo players' expectations, so that this country's bingo players get the fair deal that they deserve, and they can be assured that they would get that from the Conservatives. I urge hon. Members to accept the amendments because it is a matter of honour to meet the expectations created by the Chancellor. Depending on whether we receive a satisfactory response from the Economic Secretary, I hope that hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.

4.30 pm
Mr. Greenway

I shall be brief because I do not want the House to experience the problem highlighted by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) of not having time to debate the most important amendment—in this case, arguably, on insurance companies—which is in the last group.

The Minister addressed the Bingo Association conference the other day and I had the pleasure of speaking soon after. In their cack-handed way, the Government have done two things. First, they have united a bingo industry that, in most other respects, is divided. The two big bingo club organisations, which have about half the bingo clubs between them, support the Government's proposal for bingo in casinos. That also means that a casino could be in a bingo hall if their deregulation plans are successful. It will be interesting to see how that develops. However, the rest of the industry—all the smaller clubs—do not want that to happen. They would rather protect bingo as it is, but to do that the game has to compete with other forms of gambling. That is why the industry is united in its opposition to the Government's proposal. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), I said that it is annoyed and angry, but that is putting it mildly. As he argued, the Chancellor made a promise that he has not kept.

The second consequence of the Government's actions is, in social terms, deeply disturbing. I do not suggest that only men go into betting shops and only women go into bingo halls, but the majority of punters who go into betting shops are men and the large number of people who go into bingo clubs are women. I hope the House accepts that generalisation. As a result of the change to gross profits tax for bets in betting shops, when the husband has a bet on the 3 o'clock at Doncaster he will pay less tax on the outcome of that race than his wife will pay when she spends an evening in a bingo club, because she will be taxed twice—on the VAT on the participation fee and as a result of the 15 per cent. profits tax that bingo proprietors will have to pay. That has been explained to the Government and I cannot understand why, having heard that message, they continue to set their face against the change.

The Minister said something interesting at the Bingo Association conference. It came as a surprise to most bingo proprietors present when he said that the Government did not intend to equalise the tax across different forms of gambling. That is not the impression given to the bingo industry in the suggestion that there should be a gross profits tax.

I am left with two thoughts. The first is that whatever the House decides to do, we have not heard the last of this. It would not surprise me to find that next time we debate the subject, the Labour Benches are not deserted. Right hon. and hon. Members from all over the country will be in the Chamber because their bingo club members, whose votes they will wish to garner at the next general election, will have urged them to be here.

My second thought is to question how the Chancellor could introduce this measure. What is he up to? What is the point of this proposal? Apart from the tidiness of moving to a gross profits tax for bingo, as for other forms of gambling—I can understand that and think, in general, it should be welcomed—what were his motives? The truth is—this is a general point in relation to the overall debate on the Finance Bill—he is saying, "I realise that I am for ever raising taxes. I want to announce a cut in tax." The proposal was sold on the day of the Budget as a cut in tax. The reality, however, is that there is no cut in tax. There is a cut in tax for people who go to the betting shop—that has been delivered—but there is no cut in tax for the 7 million people who play bingo. Gradually, as they discover that they have been cheated by the Government, they will be deeply angry.

I believe that the House will want to reconsider the measure. I hope that the Minister thinks long and hard before he rejects amendment No. 3. He should consider what the Government need to do about the problem now. If they do nothing, they will lose face in future.

Mr. Djanogly

In the face of a strong showing from the bingo industry and after much hard graft by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) the Government have announced an extra £10 million tax cut for bingo. The Government have not been shy in suggesting that that should create an extra £125 million in prize money, or as the Daily Express, obligingly for Labour, put it on 19 June: Bingo—it's a £125 million bonus". However, as with so much else that we see from the Government, when the initial media stunts and spin calm down, the catches and inaccuracies begin to creep out of their dark holes.

It seems that, to achieve their £125 million, the Government are maintaining that by cutting the tax 500,000 extra people will rush out and play bingo. Perhaps the Government have based that conclusion on the thousands of people who will now be looking for a return on their money following the Government's demolition job on ISAs. Whatever the Government's pie-in-the-sky reasoning may be, I can only note, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the disbelief of the chairman of the Bingo Association in the Government's figures. He said that the £125 million would not happen today but was years off, and would be ruined in any event if the Government increased the tax on machines in bingo clubs.

This might be a good opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government have any such intention. One wonders whether the Daily Express will now print "Bingo—it's a £125 million fraud." Somehow I doubt it.

John Healey

I welcome Opposition Members' contributions, especially that of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I welcome his declared interest, he having stepped down from the Opposition Front Bench to take an interest in and devote more time to the gambling industry. I am glad that he participated in the debate.

I say to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) that whatever the wishes and whatever the expectations, especially within the industry, there is no mismatch between what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the Budget and what is delivered in the Bill. There was no promise to deliver direct equivalence between the gambling regimes, and no promise to abolish VAT on participation fees. The words "level playing fields" were not those of the Chancellor, and they were not mine. They were the hon. Gentleman's, and they might also have been those of some of his contacts in the industry.

Of course the bingo industry wanted more from the tax reforms. Indeed, it argued for more during consultation. It argued, unsurprisingly, as does the hon. Member for Eddisbury, for the full removal of VAT from players' participation fees. That would have cost at least another £50 million more than the proposals set out in the Budget and in the Bill.

I shall respond to some of the detailed points that have been raised and explain the purpose behind Government amendment No. 4.

Mr. Burnett

Before the Minister does that, perhaps he will help the House by telling us whether it is the Government's long-term aim to move to equality between bingo and betting and the pools. If it is their aim, when does he seek to achieve it?

John Healey

The short answer is no. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) presses the same argument in relation to the excise regime for alcohol. It is certainly an objective to have a fairer balance between the different gambling and alcohol regimes, but it is not the Government's objective or policy to seek direct equivalence. I hope that that makes the matter clear and categoric for the hon. Gentleman.

I understand why the hon. Member for Eddisbury wants to claim credit for Government amendment No. 4 and for my decision that lies behind it. I made it clear during the debate on bingo duty reform in the Committee of the whole House that I was already in discussion with the bingo industry. I undertook that, following those discussions, I would consider how the calculation of the gross profits tax interacts with the treatment of VAT on bingo participation fees.

To recap briefly, our reform of bingo taxation was driven by our desire to boost the bingo industry and give players a better deal. The current tax structure discouraged innovation and penalised bingo companies that lowered their margins. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that we would therefore abolish duties on bingo players' stakes and added prize money and replace them with a 15 per cent. tax on bingo companies' gross profits—the difference between the amount spent on the playing of bingo and the amount paid out in prizes. The reform would have delivered a £25 million tax cut to the bingo industry.

During discussions with officials after Budget day, the bingo industry argued that the new tax structure would produce an unfortunate consequence in the interaction between the gross profits tax and VAT on the participation fees that bingo companies charge players for running games of bingo, and asked us to consider amending clause 9 to remedy that flaw. It also asked us to extend the period for the introduction of reforms, which were scheduled for 4 August, saying that it would take three months to put the arrangements in place. It said that it would prefer a new start date, and 27 October has been specified in the Bill. After discussions with the industry, and at its request, we have altered the definition of the accounting period for the purposes of the new tax so that it better fits the industry's accounting arrangements and record keeping. That demonstrates my commitment to consider carefully the arguments that the industry makes to the Government.

Mr. Greenway

The Minister accepts that the placing of a bet in a betting shop carries no VAT, but the stake on a game of bingo, because it involves a participation fee—the entrance fee for the evening's games—attracts VAT. I understand the niceties of that. However, if the bingo industry told the Minister that it would reexamine its charging structure for playing bingo to achieve equivalence with the stake in a betting shop or a gaming machine, would he consider that carefully? It appears from what he is saying that he has set his face against a reduced VAT rate for bingo, which will remain standard rated as long as the route of participation fees is taken.

John Healey

The hon. Gentleman has made a serious point. It is correct that the gross profits tax on the betting industry is set at 15 per cent, but he will know better than any other Member that that is not the full picture, because bookmakers are required to add a levy from the gross profits that they make on horse racing as a contribution to supporting the industry, thus increasing in many respects the effective tax rate. Curiously but historically, VAT has been levied on bingo playing, but not betting, since the introduction of the VAT regime.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a speech that I made to the Bingo Association at its annual general meeting in May. I made it clear then that the reforms that we are putting in place are not necessarily a full stop for bingo tax reform. Just as happened with our reforms to gambling, betting and the lottery, we have monitored the present reforms carefully and are ready to consider good evidence and a well-argued case for further reform. Indeed, the Bill makes further reform to duty and tax, particularly on betting exchanges. We had a long discussion of that in Committee.

As a result of the discussions that the industry had with me and with officials following the Chancellor's Budget statement, amendment No. 4 has been tabled for consideration by the House. It builds on our original reform and will increase the tax cut for the industry from £25 million to £35 million, and reduce the effective tax rate—that is, tax as a percentage of profits—on the playing of bingo from 31 to 24 per cent., similar to the effective tax rates for the national lottery, casinos and gaming machines. The hon. Member for Ryedale cannot deny that that is a cut in the tax for the industry, as he seemed to do in his remarks.

4.45 pm

I have spoken to the bingo industry about the amendment, which I know it welcomes. In the Bingo Association's press release of 19 June, Sir Peter Fry, its chairman, said: The revision will make a significant difference, especially for smaller operators. John Kelly, the chief executive of Gala, the biggest bingo operator, said that the change would benefit players. The industry, through its work with the Henley centre, has predicted that it can build on this initial £35 million tax cut, and estimates that by 2007 there could be an extra 500,000 visits per year and an extra £125 million in prizes and other benefits to players, compared with its predictions for the same date if we had continued under the old tax system. I can tell the hon. Member for Eddisbury that the industry also projects that this should improve its profitability.

I welcome the fact that the Opposition have indicated that they can support amendment No. 4 and the change. I believe that it achieves what their amendment No. 1 tries to do, so it may help if I explain why I would be reluctant to accept their version. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eddisbury encourages me to move on, so I shall simply say that Opposition amendment No. 1 would have produced a perverse outcome. It would have delivered only about three quarters of the revenue benefit delivered to bingo companies by our approach in amendment No. 4, and companies that have smaller margins or invest more would receive proportionally less benefit than companies that do not.

As I explained when rejecting a similar amendment in the Committee of the whole House, although we appreciate that the bingo industry wanted a bigger tax cut, we have delivered what we believe will boost bingo, give players a better deal and is affordable in the current situation of fiscal neutrality. To accept amendment No. 3 would require us to increase taxes elsewhere or to reduce spending elsewhere. We are not prepared to do either.

It is a curious reflection—I put it no stronger than that—that a party that is not prepared to match the investment that we are making in health, education and other vital areas of public services, should choose to make this a priority for a future regime.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien

The Minister is quoting again from the Labour lie machine handbook.

John Healey

In that case, I quote the hon. Gentleman's boss, the shadow Chancellor, who said: We are not bound by any of the pledges of the last election"— pledges to match the Labour party's commitment to increase investment in health and education. The hon. Gentleman's leader said: I explicitly on three separate occasions when asked said we will not match Government spending plans. And I stand by that because our spending on the health service, on education, will be both different from a central Government standpoint and in terms of private and voluntary participation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are straying a little far from bingo.

John Healey

I am grateful for your reminder and admonishment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

To accept amendment No. 3 would require us either to increase taxes or to make spending cuts elsewhere. We are prepared to do neither. Our bingo reform is designed to deliver a boost to bingo and a better deal for players. Government amendment No. 4 builds on the original £25 million tax cut by further reducing the tax on bingo by £10 million. That is a good deal for the bingo industry and its players. I commend the Government amendment to the House and look forward to the hon. Member for Eddisbury withdrawing amendment No. 1. I hope that, in the light of my comments, he will not press his other amendment; if he does. I will ask my hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien

I listened carefully to the Economic Secretary. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) for their contributions. I understand that any acknowledgement that the Government's decision to table amendment No. 4 was prompted by our actions will not be forthcoming. Of course, if amendment No. 1 was not grouped with other amendments, I would be happy to withdraw it, but as it is not a lead amendment I cannot do what the Minister invites me to do.

The Minister said that the Government amendment is more generous than ours. That comes as no surprise. As I explained, it is uniquely in the Government's gift to change the rate of VAT. The Opposition had to work extraordinarily hard to find a way that did not contravene the Standing Orders of the House as they apply to the Finance Bill to raise the issue and at the same time make our point about the deep anger and anxiety felt by bingo players and the bingo and gaming industry.

The Economic Secretary frankly admitted that the playing field was not intended to be level and that no promise of direct equivalence was made, and said that the Chancellor had not used those phrases. However, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor used the phrase "just as" and said that bingo tax would be replaced in the same way as the tax on"—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 278.] other forms of gaming. I understand that Members of Parliament are in the business of words when we trade arguments and make our case, but I am conscious that the words we use have direct intended meanings for those outside this place who listen carefully to what we have to say. I know that if I used the phrases "just as" and "in the same way as" in this context, all those who were listening would perceive my intention to be to produce a level playing field and direct equivalence. That is what the Chancellor hoped would be perceived by the bingo players and bingo clubs of this country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said, there was tension in the bingo industry between small clubs and the large ones, all of whose interests need to be protected. To the very large number of bingo players in this country the clubs are an important source of entertainment, profit and revenue and community facilities—we should not lose sight of the importance to our local communities of such clubs, not least the Top Ten bingo club in Winsford in my constituency. It is a spurious use of spin to suggest that the Government may use words without being too worried about the precise effect that those words have. Above all, Governments are judged on their actions, and in this respect the Government have been found wanting in not having brought bingo into line with other forms of gaming, namely, pools and betting on horse racing.

It is a further spurious use of spin to suggest that a £10 million tax reduction will lead almost immediately—no time line was cited—to a £125 million benefit to the bingo industry. Notwithstanding its welcome for the £10 million cut, the industry has been criticised and castigated by commentators. When holding the Government to account, we should emphasise the importance of matching the words in the Chancellor's Budget statement with the deeds that the Government propose through the Finance Bill. That view must be reflected, given the deep anger and anxiety I mentioned earlier and—to answer the point and by the hon. Member for Torridge, and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—given that there was no commitment and no expectation in respect of time.

I think that we have flushed out the Government's true belief and intent. Unfortunately, they are not matched by what I believe were the intended consequences of the words that the Chancellor used. It is incumbent on us to hold the Government to account on that basis, so I ask my hon. Friends and all those in the House who believe that the future of bingo depends on an equal competitive position in respect of other forms of gaming, as was intended and as was the price for moving to gross profits tax, to join me in the Lobby to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 304.

Division No. 264] [4:55 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Field, Mark (Cities of London &
Allan, Richard Westminster)
Amess, David Flight, Howard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Flook, Adrian
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Forth, rh Eric
Bacon, Richard Foster, Don (Bath)
Baker, Norman Fox, Dr. Liam
Baldry, Tony Francois, Mark
Barker, Gregory Garnier, Edward
Baron, John (Billericay) George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Barrett, John Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)
Beith, rh A. J. Gidley, Sandra
Bellingham, Henry Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Bercow, John Goodman, Paul
Beresford, Sir Paul Grayling, Chris
Boswell, Tim Green, Damian (Ashford)
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Surrey) Greenway, John
Brake, Tom (Carshalton) Grieve, Dominic
Brazier, Julian Gummer, rh John
Breed, Colin Hague, rh William
Brooke, Mrs Annette L. Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &
Browning, Mrs Angela Abingdon)
Burnett, John Harvey, Nick
Burns, Simon Hawkins, Nick
Burnside, David Heath, David
Burt, Alistair Heathcoat-Amory, rh David
Butterfill, John Hendry, Charles
Cable, Dr. Vincent Hermon, Lady
Calton, Mrs Pasty Hoban, Mark (Fareham)
Cameron, David Holmes, Paul
Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife) Horam, John (Orpington)
Carmichael, Alistair Howard, rh Michael
Cash, William Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Hunter, Andrew
Barnet) Jack, rh Michael
Chidgey, David Jenkin, Bernard
Chope, Christopher Keetch, Paul
Clappison, James Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Inverness
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Key, Robert (Salisbury)
Collins, Tim Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Conway, Derek Kirkwood, Sir Archy
Cormack, Sir Patrick Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)
Cotter, Brian Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Cran, James (Beverley) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Curry, rh David Lansley, Andrew
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Laws, David (Yeovil)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Leigh, Edward
Stamford) Letwin, rh Oliver
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Howden) Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Djanogly, Jonathan Lidington, David
Dodds, Nigel Lilley, rh Peter
Duncan, Peter (Galloway) Llwyd, Elfyn
Duncan Smith, rh lain Loughton, Tim
Evans, Nigel Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Ewing, Annabelle McIntosh, Miss Anne
Fabricant, Michael Mackay, rh Andrew
Fallon, Michael Maclean, rh David
McLoughlin, Patrick Shepherd, Richard
Malins, Humfrey Simmonds, Mark
Maples, John Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns &
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Kincardine)
Atcham) Soames, Nicholas
Maude, rh Francis Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian Spicer, Sir Michael
May, Mrs Theresa Spink, Bob (Castle Point)
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Spring, Richard
Coldfield) Stanley, rh Sir John
Moss, Malcolm Streeter, Gary
Murrison, Dr. Andrew Tapsell, Sir Peter
Norman, Archie Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Oaten, Mark (Winchester) Taylor, John (Solihull)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Öpik, Lembit Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)
Osborne, George (Tatton) Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Ottaway, Richard Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Page, Richard Trend, Michael
Paice, James Trimble, rh David
Portillo, rh Michael Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Tyrie, Andrew
Dinefwr) Viggers, Peter
Prisk, Mark (Hertford) Waterson, Nigel
Pugh, Dr. John Watkinson, Angela
Redwood, rh John Webb, Steve (Northavon)
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute) Whittingdale, John
Robathan, Andrew Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Robertson, Angus (Moray) Wiggin, Bill
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) Willetts, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Roe, Mrs Marion Wilshire, David
Rosindell, Andrew Winterton, Ann (Congleton)
Ruffley, David Wishart, Pete
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Young, rh Sir George
Salmond, Alex Younger-Ross, Richard
Sanders, Adrian
Sayeed, Jonathan Tellers for the Ayes:
Selous, Andrew Hugh Robertson and
Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian Mr. Robert Syms
Abbott, Ms Diane Bradshaw, Ben
Adams, Irene (Paisley N) Brennan, Kevin
Ainger, Nick Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) Buck, Ms Karen
Alexander, Douglas Burden, Richard
Allen, Graham Burgon, Colin
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E) Burnham, Andy
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Byers, rh Stephen
Darwen) Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Atherton, Ms Candy Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Atkins, Charlotte Caplin, Ivor
Austin, John Casale, Roger
Bailey, Adrian Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Banks, Tony Challen, Colin
Barnes, Harry Clapham, Michael
Battle, John Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)
Bayley, Hugh Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh
Beard, Nigel Pentlands)
Beckett, rh Margaret Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Begg, Miss Anne Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &
Bell, Stuart Chryston)
Bennett, Andrew Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Benton, Joe (Bootle) Clelland, David
Berry, Roger Coffey, Ms Ann
Best, Harold Cohen, Harry
Betts, Clive Connarty, Michael
Blackman, Liz Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Blears, Ms Hazel Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)
Blizzard, Bob Cooper, Yvette
Boateng, rh Paul Corbyn, Jeremy
Borrow, David Corston, Jean
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington) Cousins, Jim
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Cox, Tom (Tooting)
Cranston, Ross Hurst, Alan (Braintree)
Cruddas, Jon Hutton, rh John
Cryer, Ann (Keighley) Iddon, Dr. Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Illsley, Eric
Cummings, John Ingram, rh Adam
Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack Irranca-Davies, Huw
(Copeland) Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &
Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S) Highgate)
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Dalyell, Tam Jenkins, Brian
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn
David, Wayne Hatfield)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Keeble, Ms Sally
Dawson, Hilton Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Dean, Mrs Janet Keen, Ann (Brentford)
Denham, rh John Khabra, Piara S.
Dhanda, Parmjit Kidney, David
Dismore, Andrew Kilfoyle, Peter
Dobbin, Jim (Heywood) King, Andy (Rugby)
Donohoe, Brian H. King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &
Doran, Frank Bow)
Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W) Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Drew, David (Stroud) Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Lammy, David
Efford, Clive Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ellman, Mrs Louise Laxton, Bob (Derby N)
Etherington, Bill Lepper, David
Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead) Leslie, Christopher
Fitzpatrick, Jim Levitt, Tom (High Peak)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Follett, Barbara Linton, Martin
Foster, rh Derek Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings Love, Andrew
& Rye) Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)
Foulkes, rh George Luke, Iain (Dundee E)
Gapes, Mike (Ilford S) Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)
George, rh Bruce (Walsall S) McAvoy, Thomas
Gerrard, Neil McCabe, Stephen
Gilroy, Linda McCafferty, Chris
Godsiff, Roger McDonagh, Siobhain
Goggins, Paul MacDonald, Calum
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McDonnell, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) McFall, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McIsaac, Shona
Grogan, John McKechin, Ann
Hain, rh Peter McKenna, Rosemary
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Mackinlay, Andrew
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) McNulty, Tony
Hamilton, David (Midlothian) Mactaggart, Fiona
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) McWalter, Tony
Hanson, David Mahon, Mrs Alice
Harman, rh Ms Harriet Mallaber, Judy
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) Mandelson, rh Peter
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Rhymney) Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Healey, John Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) Marshall, David (Glasgow
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Shettleston)
Hendrick, Mark Martlew, Eric
Hepburn, Stephen Meacher, rh Michael
Heppell, John Merron, Gillian
Heyes, David Michael, rh Alun
Hill, Keith (Streatham) Miliband, David
Hinchliffe, David Miller, Andrew
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale) Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hoon, rh Geoffrey Moffatt, Laura
Hopkins, Kelvin Mole, Chris
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Morgan, Julie
Sefton E) Mountford, Kali
Howells, Dr. Kim Mudie, George
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Mullin, Chris
Humble, Mrs Joan Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Southworth, Helen
Naysmith, Dr. Doug Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Norris, Dan (Wansdyke) Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Stevenson, George
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Stewart, David (Inverness E &
O'Hara, Edward Lochaber)
Olner, Bill Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
O'Neill, Martin Stinchcombe, Paul
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) Stoate, Dr. Howard
Palmer, Dr. Nick Stringer, Graham
Picking, Anne Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pickthall, Colin Sutcliffe, Gerry
Pollard, Kerry Tami, Mark (Alyn)
Pope, Greg (Hyndburn) Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)
Pound, Stephen Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)
E) Tipping, Paddy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Touhig, Don (Islwyn)
Primarolo, rh Dawn Trickett, Jon
Prosser, Gwyn Truswell, Paul
Purchase, Ken Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Quinn, Lawrie Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Rammell Bill Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Reed, Andy (Loughborough) Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)
Bellshill) Vis, Dr. Rudi
Robertson, John (Glasgow Walley, Ms Joan
Anniesland) Ward Claire
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry Wareing, Robert N.
NW) Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Watts, David
Rooney, Terry White, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Ruane, Chris Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)
Ruddock, Joan Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Russell, Ms Christine (City of Wills, Michael
Chester) Wilson, Brian
Ryan, Joan (Enfield N) Winnick, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster
Salter, Martin C)
Savidge, Malcolm Wood, Mike (Batley)
Sawford, Phil Woodward, Shaun
Sedgemore, Brian Woolas, Phil
Sheridan, Jim Worthington, Tony
Short, rh Clare Wray, James (Glasgow
Skinner, Dennis Baillieston)
Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E) Wright, Anthony D. (Gt
Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Yarmouth)
Finsbury) Wright, David (Telford)
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Lunesdale) Wyatt, Derek
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Tellers for the Noes:
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Mr. Fraser Kemp and
Soley, Clive Margaret Moran

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 7, line 12, at end insert— '() where a payment relates to a supply of services on which value added tax is chargeable, the amount of value added tax chargeable shall be disregarded (irrespective of whether or not that amount is paid by way of value added tax),'.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Back to
Forward to