§ Q3. Mr. O'Malleyasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange, that when complex legislation is presented to the House, particularly a Finance Bill, a detailed explanatory memorandum is published in the form of a White Paper.
§ The Prime MinisterThere would be great practical difficulties in producing a detailed memorandum explaining all the proposals covered by a typical Finance Bill to coincide with the publication of the Bill. On the other hand, on the occasion of the Finance Bill, 1962, a White Paper was issued explaining the provisions relating to short-term gains and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue to bear in mind the possibility of publishing, at a reasonable interval after the publication of the Bill itself, a memorandum about unusually complicated sections of the Bill.
§ Mr. O'MalleyIs the Prime Minister aware of the criticisms and views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the recent debates on the Finance Bill? Would not he consider it extremely helpful, to back-bench Members particularly, that such memoranda should be published, and therefore will he reconsider the whole matter so that in respect of future Finance Bills back-bench Members will have the kind of information which they require before they attempt to speak in this House?
§ The Prime MinisterI have every sympathy with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman. I think that Finance Bills dealing with a large number of subjects and sometimes fairly simple provisions seem very complicated. What we tried to do in 1962, where there was a fairly complicated provision, was to issue a special White Paper to explain that particular part. Other Finance Bills are 585 fairly simple and involve the raising or reduction of the Income Tax or something of that kind. Therefore, I take account of what the hon. Member has said. Perhaps 1962 sets a precedent which could be followed with the more complicated and legalistic parts of Finance Bills.
Mr. Gresham CookeDoes this Question mean that if the Labour Party gets to power it may introduce an explanatory memorandum of its intentions?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It is no part of the duty of the Prime Minister to answer about the intentions of the party opposite.
§ Mr. CallaghanHas the Prime Minister looked at the Finance Bill this year to see that it took us nearly 20 Clauses and seven Schedules to get rid of Schedule A? Would not that have been a very appropriate subject for an explanatory memorandum?
§ The Prime MinisterPerhaps. But happily we got rid of Schedule A.