FINANCE BILL (Hansard, 10 July 1973)

HC Deb 10 July 1973 vol 859 cc1291-4 1291

§ As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.

§ 5.0 p.m.

§ Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Roy-ton)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just heard from the Chief Secretary about the need for a particular financial motion because of the urgency involved in introducing a new clause. While I appreciate that I cannot argue about the selection of amendments and new clauses, I understand that you were not able to select the new clauses dealing with VAT. However, it would be perfectly open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move financial motions similar to those which we have been discussing to enable us to consider an equally urgent and important matter. There are on the Order Paper new clauses seeking to zero-rate such things as kidney machines and which are aimed at helping churches and charities—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Barnett
I appreciate that. I was about to say that I was wondering whether you would be prepared to accept a manuscript financial motion. We have been discussing—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman was, I believe, beginning to realise that that would not be possible.

§ Mr. Barnett
I was about to say that I am sure it is possible that Treasury Ministers may have something to say in view of what has already been said about the urgency of this subject. One thinks of kidney machines, charities—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that Treasury Ministers will not feel so disposed because they would be out of order if they were to try to do so.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There must be some way in 1292 which the House can express its resentment at the fact that the Government can come here and manage to put forward a financial motion, adopting a procedure which enables them to table another amendment, but that the House cannot use such a procedure to table amendments which are of considerable importance to many people. I am thinking particularly of the charity amendments, one of which I have tabled, which was requested by the churches to cover their activities. If the Government are so solicitous over the question of trustee investments in waterworks should they not be equally solicitous about the effect of VAT on churches?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Much as the Chair may wish to do so, the hon. Member must realise that this is not something on which the Chair can take action. It would not be in order.

§ Mr. Lyon
With respect, it would be in order for the Treasury Bench to move a procedure motion, similar to that which it has just moved, which would allow us to discuss VAT.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The matter is in the past tense. It would have been in order. We are now considering the Bill.

§ Mr. Barnett
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the Treasury Bench would prefer to adjourn while it tables a new financial motion because it has not yet said whether it would like to debate VAT. I may say that there are hon. Members on all sides of the House who wish to discuss amendments relating to such things as ambulances, kidney machines, sanitary pads—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not see anyone making a quick response.

§ Mr. Lyon
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will reconsider the opinion you have given that such a motion could not be tabled now that we have embarked upon Report stages. Surely the Treasury Bench could move such a motion at any stage thus allowing us to discuss these amendments which have been ruled out of order because of the narrowness with which the Government framed the motion.

1293

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has misunderstood. I had intended to convey that he could not do so.

§ Mr. Lyon
I accept that. What I am saying is that because of the narrowness of the motion the Treasury Bench is being allowed to rule out discussion on these important VAT amendments. It is therefore incumbent upon it, so that people can express their views, to introduce a motion somewhat similar to that which we have just been discussing which would enable these VAT amendments to he discussed. That surely would be in order. I am asking for your ruling whether it would be in order for the Treasury Bench to introduce a manuscript motion which would allow us to discuss the VAT amendments which have been ruled out of order by the Chair because they did not come within the financial motion.

§ (1) Where the House of Commons passes a resolution which—

(a) provides for the variation or abolition of an existing stamp duty other than estate duty; and
5 (b) is expressed to have effect for a period stated in the resolution in accordance with the following provisions of this section; and
(c) contains a declaration that it is expedient in the public interest that the resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of this section;

§ then, subject to subsection (3) of this section, the resolution shall for the period so stated have statutory effect as if contained in an Act of Parliament.

§ 10 (2) The period to be stated in a resolution is a period expressed as beginning on a date so stated and ending on, or thirty-one days or such less number of days as may be so stated after, the earliest of the dates mentioned in this subsection; and those dates are—

15 (a) the twenty-fifth day on which, after the day the resolution is passed, the House of Commons sits without a Bill containing provisions to the same effect as the resolution being read a second time and without a Bill being amended (whether by the House or a Committee of the House or a Standing Committee) so as to include such provisions;
20 (b) the rejection of such provisions during the passage through the House of a Bill containing them;
(c) the dissolution or prorogation of Parliament; and
(d) the expiration of the period of five months beginning with the day on which the resolution takes effect.

§ 25 (3) A resolution shall cease to have statutory effect under this section if an Act comes into operation varying or abolishing the duty.

§ (4) The ending of the period for which a resolution has statutory effect under the provisions of this section shall not affect the validity of anything done during that period.—[Mr. Nott.]

§ Brought up, and read the First time.

§ The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we can also discuss the following: Amendment (a), in line 8, after '(3)', insert 'and (5)'.
Amendment (b), in line 28, at end add:
'(5) The net increase in the revenue arising from all such variation or abolition of existing

1294

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think not, because notice would have to be given

§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for a suggestion to be taken up by the Treasury Bench to the effect that it should move a manuscript amendment to bring into VAT exemption acquisitions by national collections since dealers are allowed to purchase these for foreign—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest but he cannot go further on that point.