Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill — Age additions — 3 Apr 2000

John Prescott MP, Kingston upon Hull East voted with the majority (No).

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 36-- Annual increase in basic retirement pension --

During their years in government, the Tories learned that the more they tried to target benefit on the poorest, the more the social security budget grew. Our new clause aims to restore the incentive to top up the basic state provision with private provision and, in the long run, that will be the most effective and efficient way to spend public money. I beg to move new clause 36.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington):

With some surprise, I, too, beg to move new clause 36, which stands in my name and in the names of many others, some of whom are on Council of Europe duty and send their apologies.

miserly . . . not even enough for a pound of sausages and a couple of loaves, while workers on average pay are receiving increases of more than £20 a week and some executives increases of more than £2,000 a week.

we cannot get a decent link for pensioners . . .--[ Official Report , 21 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 645-651.]

when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.

We published our written submissions (Pensions, not Poor Relief) in March 1998. They amounted to a comprehensive and sustainable programme of reform, taking account of the needs of both today's and tomorrow's pensioners. We stressed the need to make good the loss of the value of the basic pension resulting from the breaking of the link with average earnings, and to restore the link for the future.

We must resurrect the basic pension as the foundation of security in old age for everyone. This means the restoration of the earnings link for future annual upratings.

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

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 275.

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 000.0%
Independent1 0033.3%
Lab274 (+2 tell) 8068.3%
LDem0 29 (+2 tell)067.4%
PC0 2050.0%
Total:275 39050.6%

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
Diane AbbottHackney North and Stoke NewingtonLab (minister)aye
Mr Tony BennChesterfieldLabaye
Jeremy CorbynIslington NorthLabaye
Frank FieldBirkenheadLabaye
Lynne JonesBirmingham, Selly OakLabaye
John Martin McDonnellHayes and HarlingtonLab (minister)aye
Alan SimpsonNottingham SouthLabaye
Mike WoodBatley and SpenLabaye

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