Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Social Security

Ways and Means – in the House of Commons at 10:15 pm on 20th December 1983.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North 10:15 pm, 20th December 1983

I beg to move, That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

Photo of Mr Paul Dean Mr Paul Dean , Woodspring

With this it will be convenient to take the following motions: That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North

The draft orders to which the motions refer, together with the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 5) Regulations 1983 which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on 14 November, are the result of what is known as the contributions re-rating exercise for 1984–85. The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) and the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 7) Regulations 1983, the latter of which my right hon. Friend made on 15 November, also deal with the amount of contributions to be paid next year. With the leave of the House, therefore, I shall discuss these five instruments together.

We have had a social security day today. Last night we discussed housing benefits for three hours. A statutory instrument was discussed in Committee this morning. This evening we have debated the Health and Social Security Bill. Now we are to discuss the re-rating of national insurance contributions.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North

I shall not allow myself to be tempted to tangle with the hon. Gentleman.

As hon. Members will know, the Social Security Act 1975 requires my right hon. Friend to carry out a review each year of the general level of earnings. At the same time, he reviews the state of the national insurance fund, as he is empowered to do by the same Act. The purpose of this exercise in good housekeeping is to make sure that the money coining into the fund is sufficient to pay for benefits whilst maintaining an appropriate level of balance to guard against unexpected adverse contingencies. The report of the Government Actuary on the effect of the proposed changes was laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November, as required by the Act.

The first changes that I will discuss are those to the lower and upper earnings limits for employees' and employers' contributions. The Social Security Pensions Act 1975 requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to, or no more than 49p below, the basic pension rate, and the upper limit to be between 6·5 and 7·5 times that rate. A pension rate of £34·05 next year therefore points unavoidably to a lower earnings limit of £34 per week, if we are to follow the usual practice of dealing in multiples of 50p. The upper earnings limit permits a little more discretion: a figure of up to £255 per week is possible. However, an increase to £250 would be more in line with the movement of earnings. This would be 7·3 times the basic pension rate, towards the top of the permitted range of 6·5 and 7·5 times. This is, therefore, what is proposed.

Of course, most people have earnings between the lower and upper earnings limits and so will be virtually unaffected by these changes; their contributions will rise only in so far as their wages rise. The contributions of employees with weekly earnings of over £235 per week will increase by up to £1·35 per week—up to £1·07 per week in the case of contracted-out employees. For married women and widows paying at the reduced rate on earnings of more than £235 a week, the maximum weekly increase will be 57p.

Similarly, employers will have to pay increased contributions for employees on high earnings; the maximum increase will be £1·71 in respect of not contracted-out employees and £1·17 for others.

It will be most convenient for hon. Members if I now deal with the No. 6 and No. 7 Amendment Regulations, the only other instruments which directly affect class 1 contributions. As hon. Members will know, lower contribution rates are payable for certain mariners and for serving members of Her Majesty's Forces because of the particular features of their employment which affect their national insurance position. For various reasons, including the falling numbers of claims to sickness benefit generally and the introduction of statutory sick pay from 1 April this year, it is proposed, through these instruments, to adjust the levels of abatement in the light of advice from the Government Actuary. I should add, in case any hon. Member should raise the question, that the social security advisory council is content with these changes.

Photo of Mr Jeff Rooker Mr Jeff Rooker , Birmingham, Perry Barr

Social security advisory committee.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North

I am always glad to be helped by the hon. Gentleman, whom we have now lost from social security. His advice was always helpful to me on these occasions, but he does not seem to recognise gratitude when it is offered to him. We are living in sorry times.

I come now to the self-employed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman comes into that category. Members will be aware that self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts, the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. As it is not proposed to increase the class 1 rate, it follows that no increase is needed in the class 4 rate, which is derived from it. The profits limits for class 4 contributions rise automatically each year like the earnings limits for class 1 contributions. The figures proposed for next year are £3,950 and £13,000, the latter figure being 52 times the upper earning limit.

The formula for determining the class 2 rate gives a figure of £4·80 a week. However, for the last two years we have set the rate at a figure 20p below that given by the formula and we propose to continue this practice this year with a weekly rate of £4·60. The small earnings exception from class 2 liability also rises automatically —in this case from £1,775 to £1,850 a year.

The proposed voluntary class 3 rate is, as usual, 10p below the class 2 rate, giving a figure of £4·50 a week from next April.

The last change which is being proposed is the reduction in the Treasury supplement from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. The Government Actuary's report shows the estimated effect of this and the other changes under discussion on the national insurance fund. The Government Actuary estimates that the balance in the fund at the end of 1983–84 will be £4,280 million and that this figure will increase to £4,480 million by the end of 1984–85 if we make the proposed changes. In other words, the balance at the end of 1983–84 will represent 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure during the year and a year later the equivalent figure will be 21·6 per cent. Both those figures are comfortably above the minimum level, of one sixth of the benefit expenditure, recommended by the Government Actuary.

The reduction in the Treasury supplement will also mean that national insurance contributors will bear a slightly increased proportion of the cost of contributory benefits. This I stress, because it was a point made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in the debate last year. I believe that he will speak for the Opposition this year, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) having moved to become Treasury spokesman to keep an eye on him.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North

Yes, his minder, as the Opposition recognise. However, when we look at all social security benefit expenditure, the balance in recent years has been moving from the contributor towards the taxpayer. Over recent years we have moved to more non-contributory benefits. The hon. Member for Birkenhead raised the point last year. He is always consistent, which is why I am stressing this point, otherwise, he will ask me questions towards the end. He may still, but I make that point now.

It means that 50 per cent. of total social security expenditure comes from the state as against only 45·1 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government in 1978–79. In 1984–85 we are reducing this to 49 per cent., a reduction of 1 per cent. It will still mean that the proportion of total social security expenditure that will come directly from the state and not the contributors will be 3-9 percentage points higher than in 1978–79. I mention this because I am sure the hon. Member will take the matter up at some later date, if not tonight. I wish the hon. Member would listen because I always find his arguments interesting and stimulating, and it helps if we are talking about the same thing from time to time. I would be delighted to debate on some platform the question where we are as compared with where Beveridge intended us to be because, with all this contributory and non-contributory argument, I can think of no one better to debate it with than the hon. Gentleman.

We may need a debate as to how the percentage provided by the state compared with the percentage intended by Beveridge. The share covered by the state has greatly increased since the 1960s from 34·9 per cent. in 1965–66 at the time of the Labour Government to 50 per cent. in 1983–84. All we shall do by this 2 per cent. reduction in the Treasury supplement is to reduce to 49 per cent. the amount coming from the state as its share of the global expenditure on social security. One major difference is that we now have an openly pay-as-you-go scheme as against the actuarially based scheme intended at times by Beveridge, and there has been a massive growth in Exchequer-finance expenditure.

Those are the changes that we are proposing. For the first time in several years, it is not proposed to increase the class 1 or class 4 contribution rate, and I believe this will be as welcome to the majority of hon. Members present as it is to employers and employees.

The two orders and three sets of regulations are the result of a necessary exercise in care and maintenance to keep the national insurance contributory system up to date and to make sure that money is available to pay for benefits. It is on this basis that I commend them to the House.

Photo of Frank Field Frank Field , Birkenhead 10:28 pm, 20th December 1983

Although the House is debating three orders, I wish to concentrate on the one that changes the Treasury supplement. While concentrating on one order, I wish to show that it forms part of a consistent pattern under the Government of bringing forward changes in national insurance regulations that have shifted the burden of taxation to poorer people and those on average earnings from those who are richer. Whereas in this Parliament and the last Parliament it does not have the sort of appeal it used to have on the Government Benches, I also wish to show, by looking at the orders tonight and those that have preceded it from 1979, that they all helped to undermine three key election pledges made by Conservative Governments not only in 1983 but in 1974.

In those two manifestos the Government gave three clear commitments. One was to increase the incentive to work. I wish to argue that these orders, along with other orders the House has considered since 1979, have decreased the incentive to work. I wish to argue that, far from fulfilling the election manifesto pledge of decreasing taxation, the orders the House is now considering and other orders that it has considered since 1979 have increased the burden of taxation. Far from meeting the Conservative manifesto pledge of giving value for money, these measures and previous ones give the lie to that pledge.

I said at the outset that I would concentrate on the Treasury supplement. Changes in that supplement have shifted the burden of taxation from different groups in the population and have resulted in a decrease in the incentive to work. The Minister said that he would like to debate at some time the position that we have reached today compared with the position which Beveridge thought we should have reached today. As we cannot debate these matters tonight for more than an hour and a half, I will limit my comments to where Beveridge thought we should be today in respect of the Treasury supplement.

Surprisingly, given the detail of the Beveridge report, it contained no specific figure for the Treasury supplement in the years following the establishment of the welfare state. There was a figure, however, in the White Paper that followed the Beveridge report. It was suggested in that that by 1975 — there were no figures beyond 1975 — the Treasury supplement should be about 67 per cent. of total national insurance expenditure.

In the last year of Labour Government, the Treasury supplement made up 18 per cent. of the national insurance fund. If this instrument is approve tonight, the Government will have reduced that share from the Treasury to 11 per cent. Thus, more money is to be raised by way of national insurance contributions, and of all the forms of taxation that we have, that is the most regressive in the British fiscal system, because the threshold is so low. For a worker with children, the national insurance threshold is below the supplementary benefit poverty line and way below the eligibility point for family income supplement.

It is regressive also in the sense that national insurance contributions are collected in the way in which income tax used to be collected under the old exemption system; as soon as one passes the threshold, not just additional income but all one's income becomes taxable. As one passes the £34 threshold, not just the additional £ 1 becomes liable to the national insurance surcharge, but every £1, including the first that one earned. If that were not enough to make this form of taxation regressive, we have not only a low threshold, but a ceiling on contributions as a result of which, as contributions are increased, those on the highest earnings pay relatively less than those on lower earnings.

The Government are therefore seeking permission tonight for a decrease in the Treasury supplement, and as that process has continued since 1979, the Government have had to seek increases in the rates of contribution. They made much of the fact that the rates would not be increased, but it is instructive to consider the way in which they have changed the balance, not just between the Treasury contribution and those who are making contributions as employers and employees, but also between the employer and employee.

When the Conservatives assumed office, the employer's contribution was 10 per cent. It now stands at 10·45 per cent., and if one adds in the surcharge, the cost to employers of the national insurance fund has fallen. I hope that hon. Members, including my hon. Friends, will say that that is a welcome development, as would anybody who is concerned with increasing the number of jobs in society. But is it fair to shift the burden not only from the Treasury to contributors but within the contributors' sector, from employers to employees, in the way that the Government have? When the Conservatives came to office, the national insurance contribution for those of us in work was 6·5 per cent. Today it stands at 9 per cent.

That is not the end of the sorry tale. The Government have set out to raise a greater percentage of all revenue from this most regressive of all forms of taxation. When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, for each £100 of taxation raised by other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund raised an additional £64. If these instruments are approved, for each £100 of revenue raised by all other forms of taxation, the national insurance fund will contribute an additional £70. That is the magnitude of the shift in the burden of taxation to the national insurance fund. The result is that the level of taxation has increased for most income groups. but especially for the poor. The national insurance contribution rates have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Government have helped to deepen the poverty trap, and have thus gone back on their election pledges of 1983 and 1979 to increase incentives to work.

I hope, therefore, that I have established my first point. By looking at the shift in the burden of taxation I have tried to explain who is contributing a greater proportion to the national insurance fund today than in 1979. That is not the entire tale behind the three instruments. Along with higher contributions have gone lower benefits, and sometimes no benefits at all. That policy hardly squares with the promises made at the 1979 and 1983 elections that there would be value for money. That was to be one of the key principles of Tory policy.

I shall briefly remind the House why, on the one hand, we have been paying more into the national insurance fund, and how on the other hand we are getting fewer benefits as a result of the increase in taxation. Some benefits have been scrapped altogether. The industrial injury benefit and the earnings-related supplement to short-term national insurance benefits have disappeared. The invalidity pension and the maternity and sickness benefits have been cut in value, although the Government prefer the word "abatement". Labour's pledge to increase long-term benefits in line with earnings of prices has gone. If that pledge had been held by the Government, the national insurance pension for a single person would stand not at £34 but at £37.

The second point that I have sought to establish is that those of us who are paying higher contributions throughout the country have received lower benefits. That hardly squares with the Government's election promises to give value for money.

Perhaps we should be making an even more serious charge against the Government. The national insurance contribution increases have resulted in practically the whole of the increase in the tax burden since 1979. We well recall the pledges in both elections that the Government's aim was to decrease taxation.

An interesting reply was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) recently, when he asked what the burden of taxation was on different income groups since 1979. I do not think that I am misrepresenting the reply when I say that it showed that practically all groups had seen an increase in the burden of taxation since 1979, except the very rich. After seeing the answer, I asked the Library to re-work my hon. Friend's answer and to establish what the burden of taxation would be if the national insurance contribution of those in work had been not increased but held at the level when the Labour Government left office. Once those calculations are to hand, one sees that the Tory Government would have fulfilled their election pledge of reducing taxation not just for the very rich but for all groups, especially those with families, had there been no increase in the national insurance contributions since 1979. We are debating three instruments in a series dating from 1979, which have undermined one of the key planks of Government policy—to reduce the burden of taxation not just for the very rich but for every worker in the land.

I end my speech by referring to another parliamentary reply. that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who wanted to know what had been the extent of tax cuts since 1979 on those earning more than £30,000 per year. The Government's reply was staggering. Each of the very rich in our society has had a reduction in his tax burden since 1979 of £9,260, compared with an increase in the burden of taxation—largely through the national insurance contribution increases—that has hit virtually every other worker.

The Opposition will vote against the instruments because they increase the tax burden on those least able to bear it—those people whose benefits have also been cut. If our appeal to shift the burden of taxation from the weakest in our society does not appeal to Conservative Members, I hope that they will recognise that these instruments, which are part of a pattern introduced since 1979, undermine three crucial Conservative election pledges.

Photo of Mr Andrew Rowe Mr Andrew Rowe , Kent Mid 10:41 pm, 20th December 1983

It is absurd for the Opposition to argue that simply because a Labour Government levied a wholly unrealistic and unreasonable rate of tax we should do realistic sums based on how much it has been reduced. There is no doubt that the higher rates of tax levied in Britain have been levied by Labour Governments — they were absurdly high, and much higher than those levied by our more successful competitors abroad.

I am one of many Conservative Members who wait for the second part of Conservative policy to come home to roost. We promised to do our utmost to release the inventiveness of our people. We can do that by ensuring that the large numbers who are now bravely venturing into working for themselves can look forward to a tax and insurance package that makes it profitable for them to be self-employed—especially in the early years when it is difficult for them to make ends meet and to keep their heads above water. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure us that he will look closely at the position of the self-employed, especially those at the lower end of the income scale.

We have waited rather a long time for the fulfilment of the pledge of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would release Britain from its dependence on Truck. Many people receive benefits in kind. When all our social services are under the pressure of the need to reduce expenditure, we should look closely at the practice whereby people receive benefits in kind to an extent which distorts the economy and makes it difficult for people to make the choices about how they spend their money that are essential to a healthy society. If we did that, we could release the spare resources to redeem the pledge of the Chancellor—which gave me great pleasure—that his first priority would be to take those on the lowest incomes out of tax altogether. That is overdue. Far too many people are trapped in tax and national insurance contributions that only deepen the poverty trap. On that point, I accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Our biggest problem is the extraordinary disincentive to work. It is not that people willingly give up working in exchange for a life on the state. Many of us know from our daily constituency correspondence that people are forced to make an entirely rational decision to stop work.

There was a watershed in the history of British society when it became apparent that a penny on income tax would yield more than increasing the rates of higher taxation. Similarly, there will be another watershed if tax is removed from the poorest in our society, so that many of them can return to the labour market in a Conservative way that is good for human dignity. I very much hope that this necessary move tonight is only one step towards redeeming the pledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in his autumn statement, when he said that before long a substantial number of people would be removed from tax altogether.

Photo of Mr Archy Kirkwood Mr Archy Kirkwood , Roxburgh and Berwickshire 10:46 pm, 20th December 1983

I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I shall not take up his remarks, save to say that he has a point about the burden being endured by the self-employed. There are not many obvious increases in the orders, but the burden, particularly of national insurance contributions, has become unacceptably high.

I should like to ask the Government some questions about the Government Actuary's report. I am not experienced in perusing such documents, but in table 2, on page 4, there seems to he a quite significant increase in the cost of administering the national insurance fund. The administration costs for 1983–84 are there shown as £707 million, while the administration costs for 1984–85 are shown as £761 million. That is a significant increase of more than £1 million per week, if my understanding of table two is correct, perhaps it is not an increase of £54 million, and my ignorance and inexperience have led me to make a mistake. However, if I am right, it is an astonishing sum of money, I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.

I confess, again, that I am relatively inexperienced in interpreting the figures. It seems that the surpluses shown in table 2—£257 million in 1983–84 and £200 million in 1984–85 — represent considerable sums. There is a substantial balance in fund of £4,280 million for 1983–84, and a substantial projected balance of £4,480 million for 1984–85. I am aware that the Government Actuary has recommended that something like 16·6 per cent. of the total benefit expenditure must be held in reserve, and that is only sensible. However, it has been said that we are on target for 21·6 or 21·7 per cent. of benefit expenditure. That gives a leeway of 5 per cent., which is a lot of money in this context. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.

I shall follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who showed in exemplary fashion that the system of taxation under discussion today is regressive. I believe that it is wrong to shift the burden further from the Exchequer to the contributors and to place a greater burden on employees than on employers. The hon. Gentleman certainly proved to my satisfaction that over the distance there has been an increase in the total taxation burden for all groups when national insurance fund contributions are included.

Since 1979, class 1 contributions have increased from 6·5 per cent. to 9 per cent. The Minister may try today to make a virtue of the fact that there is no further increase, but he must accept that the increase since 1979 is not insignificant.

Like the hon. Member for Mid-Kent, I appreciate that there is pressure on people in self-employed classes 2 and 4. The Government would do well to consider not just saying complacently that they are glad not to have to increase the contributions further but actually looking for ways to reduce them.

As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the Treasury supplement has already fallen from 18 per cent. to 13 per cent. and the Government now seek a further reduction to 11 per cent. that is an unfair sharing of the burden between contributors and taxpayers and a disincentive to work.

The reduction of the Treasury supplement from 18 per cent. to 11 per cent. before contracted-out contributions are taken into account will seriously affect pensions. The Select Committee on Social Services and the Social Security Advisory Committee in its second annual report, both highlighted the future problems for people with very little earnings-related contribution in their pensions. A gulf will inevitably open up between those people and younger people on earnings-related pensions as the present scheme matures. The oldest will thus be the poorest in terms of national insurance pensions until all those born before 1933 have died. How do the Government intend to deal with that problem if they wish to reduce the Treasury contribution to the national insurance fund still further?

On 30 November I attended a seminar organised by the Institute of Actuaries at which an actuary, Mr. G. T. Pepper, pointed out that the cost of national insurance pensions was expected to rise from about 9·5 per cent. of total wages and salaries to 19 per cent. in about 50 years. That is a 100 per cent. increase. At the same conference, the Government Actuary estimated that contributions would ultimately increase by about 50 per cent. That assumed a Treasury supplement of 13 per cent., however, and it is now proposed to reduce the supplement to 11 per cent. It also assumed unemployment at pre-recession levels.

As the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee stressed, a long-term problem will inevitably arise. There will be a serious shortfall in the long-term when pensions must be produced by the national insurance contributions system. Far from decreasing the amount of money that comes from the Treasury supplement, the Government might be forced to find resources and should be considering the long-term increase necessary to cover that problem if no other.

Because of the regressiveness of the proposals, the strength of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the fact that we believe that the Government have reneged on their promises and the lack of long-term planning which we believe is necessary, we shall be voting in the No Lobby.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North 10:55 pm, 20th December 1983

I shall be short and sharp. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have put the arguments backwards and forwards. I am not sure that we have convinced one another, but at least we now know where the arguments lie.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) mentioned the cost of the national insurance contribution scheme. Its running costs have increased by about 8 per cent. this year as there are more demands on staffing and general costs. The balance in the fund at any time is really enough for only about 10 weeks' expenditure on benefits. That seems reasonable. Most businesses run on larger balances but that is what the Government Actuary has accepted and we work with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) mentioned helping the self-employed. I received his message. Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), he mentioned the work traps. I remain in political sympathy on that matter with my hon. Friend who reminded our party of the direction which we should take. I am not sure that I find myself completely in sympathy with the hon. Member for Birkenhead although I respect his views. I appreciate the point about the regressiveness of taxation.

Under the Labour Government, the employer's contribution was increased from about 8·5 per cent. to 12·6 per cent., while the employee's contribution increased by only 1 per cent. We have balanced those contributions up, although that might not be popular with some Opposition Members. The incentive to work concerns both sides of the House. The Exchequer contribution to the fund is not the total extent of Government expenditure. If we reached a stage when 44 per cent. of the fund was paid for by the Government, it would be a burden.

Photo of Frank Field Frank Field , Birkenhead

The contribution should have been increased.

Photo of Dr Rhodes Boyson Dr Rhodes Boyson , Brent North

It has been increased by some pressures. If we listened to Opposition Members it would have been increased much more. The whole thing would have gone mad if we had followed their advice. I hate to say such things just before the Christmas season.

The change is simply a 2 per cent. reduction in the Exchequer's contribution to the national insurance fund and a restoration to 49 per cent., as opposed to 50 per cent., of the total amount of social security expenditure which is paid for by the Exchequer. Insurance benefits cannot be separated from the rest.

I have a list of 12 non-contributory benefits which have completely altered the balance. I shall not go through that list as it is coming up to 11 pm, which I understand is a significant time this evening. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the order, whether it be because of the strength of the arguments or because they want to enable the Opposition to have a good sleep so that they can make better arguments tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 6) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Motion made anti Question proposed,

That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.—[Dr. Boyson.]

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 90.

Division No. 113][11 pm
AYES
Alexander, RichardBudgen, Nick
Amess, DavidBurt, Alistair
Ancram, MichaelButterfill, John
Arnold, TomCarlisle, John (N Luton)
Ashby, DavidCarlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Aspinwall, JackCarttiss, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Chope, Christopher
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Baldry, AnthonyClarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Cockeram, Eric
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyColvin, Michael
Beggs, RoyConway, Derek
Bellingham, HenryCoombs, Simon
Berry, Sir AnthonyCope, John
Best, KeithCouchman, James
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnCurrie, Mrs Edwina
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnDicks, T.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterDouglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Body, RichardDover, Denshore
Bonsor, Sir NicholasDykes, Hugh
Boscawen, Hon RobertEmery, Sir Peter
Bottomley, PeterEvennett, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Eyre, Reginald
Boyson, Dr RhodesFallon, Michael
Braine, Sir BernardFarr, John
Brandon-Bravo, MartinFavell, Anthony
Bright, GrahamForth, Eric
Brinton, TimFowler, Rt Hon Norman
Brooke, Hon PeterFox, Marcus
Brown, M. (Brigg & Crthpes)Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bruinvels, PeterGoodlad, Alastair
Bryan, Sir PaulGrant, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Grist, IanPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Grylls, MichaelPollock, Alexander
Gummer, John SelwynPowell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Powell, William (Corby)
Hampson, Dr KeithPowley, John
Harris, DavidPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)Proctor, K. Harvey
Hayes, J.Raffan, Keith
Heddle, JohnRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Henderson, BarryRenton, Tim
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Rhodes James, Robert
Holt, RichardRoberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Hooson, TomRoe, Mrs Marion
Howard, MichaelRoss, Wm. (Londonderry)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hunt, David (Wirral)Rowe, Andrew
Jenkin, Rt Hon PatrickRumbold, Mrs Angela
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Ryder, Richard
King, Rt Hon TomSackville, Hon Thomas
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Knowles, MichaelSayeed, Jonathan
Lamont, NormanShaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lang, IanShelton, William (Streatham)
Lee, John (Pendle)Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lester, JimSims, Roger
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamfd)Skeet, T. H. H.
Lightbown, DavidSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)
Lord, MichaelSpeed, Keith
McCurley, Mrs AnnaSpeller, Tony
Macfarlane, NeilSpencer, D.
MacGregor, JohnSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)Squire, Robin
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Stanbrook, Ivor
Maclean, David John.Stern, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Madel, DavidStevens, Martin (Fulham)
Major, JohnStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Malins, HumfreyStewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Mather, CarolStradling Thomas, J.
Maude, FrancisTapsell, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinTaylor, Rt Hon John David
Mayhew, Sir PatrickTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Merchant, PiersTerlezki, Stefan
Meyer, Sir AnthonyThomas, Rt Hon Peter
Miller, Hal (B grove)Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mills, lain (Meriden)Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Moate, RogerThornton, Malcolm
Molyneaux, Rt Hon JamesThurnham, Peter
Montgomery, FergusTracey, Richard
Moore, JohnTwinn, Dr Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Moynihan, Hon C.Viggers, Peter
Mudd, DavidWaddington, David
Murphy, ChristopherWakeham, Rt Hon John
Nelson. AnthonyWalden, George
Newton, TonyWalker, Cecil (Belfast N)
Nicholson, J.Waller, Gary
Norris, StevenWardle, C. (Bexhill)
Onslow, CranleyWarren, Kenneth
Ottaway, RichardWatson, John
Page, John (Harrow W)Watts, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Pawsey, JamesWheeler, John
Whitfield, JohnWoodcock, Michael
Whitney, RaymondYeo, Tim
Wiggin, JerryYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Wilkinson, John
Winterton, Mrs AnnTellers for the Ayes:
Winterton, NicholasMr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Wolfson, MarkMr. Michael Neubert
Wood, Timothy
NOES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)John, Brynmor
Ashdown, PaddyJones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Barron, KevinKennedy, Charles
Beckett, Mrs MargaretKirkwood, Archibald
Beith, A. J.Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Blair, AnthonyLoyden, Edward
Boyes, RolandMcDonald, Dr Oonagh
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)McKelvey, William
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)McNamara, Kevin
Bruce, MalcolmMcTaggart, Robert
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)McWilliam, John
Canavan, DennisMadden, Max
Clay, RobertMarek, Dr John
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Maxton, John
Cohen, HarryMeacher, Michael
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.Michie, William
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)Nellist, David
Corbett, RobinPaisley, Rev Ian
Corbyn, JeremyPark, George
Craigen, J. M.Parry, Robert
Cunliffe, LawrencePatchett, Terry
Dalyell, TamPavitt, Laurie
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)Penhaligon, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)Pike, Peter
Deakins, EricPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Dobson, FrankPrescott, John
Dorrnand, JackRedmond, M.
Dubs, AlfredRobertson, George
Duffy, A. E. P.Rooker, J. W.
Eadie, AlexRoss, Ernest (Dundee W)
Eastham, KenRowlands, Ted
Evans, John (St. Helens N)Sheerman, Barry
Fatchett, DerekSkinner, Dennis
Faulds, AndrewSoley, Clive
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Stott, Roger
Foulkes, GeorgeStrang, Gavin
George, BruceThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Godman, Dr NormanThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Harman, Ms HarrietWareing, Robert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Tellers for the Noes:
Home Robertson, JohnMr. Frank Haynes and
Hoyle, DouglasMr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 17th November, be approved.