ISAs, TESSAs and PEPs — 3 Mar 1998

Dominic Grieve MP, Beaconsfield voted in the minority (Aye).

I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the success of TESSAs and PEPs in extending popular saving and deplores the Government's proposal to abolish them and replace them with Individual Savings Accounts (ISAs); condemns the retrospective taxation of the most prudent savers who have accumulated more than £50,000; believes that ISAs will involve high administrative costs, especially because of the unnecessary and unfair lifetime limit on tax-free saving; and urges the Government to bring forward new proposals that would not involve retrospective taxation, would build on PEPs and TESSAs, would reduce the costs of administering the schemes and would not involve a lifetime limit on the amount that may be invested.

That was the height of deception. The Chief Secretary chose to deny the one assertion in the article that has since proved to be true, that Labour would abolish PEPs; but he chose not to qualify his clear assurances--which have since proved bogus--that Labour would do nothing retrospectively, that there would be no penalty for those with existing PEPs or TESSAs and that there would be no uncertainty in the tax regime.

I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's commitment, set out in the pre-Budget report, to consult on tax proposals, including the proposed ISA; believes that the ISA will extend the opportunity to save and invest and that the Government's proposals will ensure a stable and fair savings environment; commends the Government for its commitment to long-term economic stability and low inflation which is good for savers; and rejects any return to the boom and bust policies of the past which were so damaging to those on low incomes, savers and investors.".

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:--

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 329.*

Historical Hansard | Online Hansard |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 134 (+2 tell)084.0%
Lab287 (+2 tell) 0069.3%
LDem33 0071.7%
PC0 40100.0%
UUP0 4040.0%
Total:320 142072.9%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive