FINANCE BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 04 March 1975 vol 887 cc1285-355

4.41 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)

I beg to move, That the

Proceedings	Time for conclusion or interruption
New Clauses not relating to capital transfer tax or estate duty, and Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18 and 50 to 56 and to Schedules 1 to 3 and 12.	To be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the first allotted day.
New Clauses relating to capital transfer tax or estate duty.	To be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.
Amendments relating to Clauses 19 to 49, new Schedules.	(a) To be interrupted at midnight on the third allotted day;
Amendments relating to Schedules 4 to 11, and Third Reading.	(b) to be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the fourth allotted day.

(2) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

(3) The Third Reading of the Bill may be taken immediately after the Consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the stages of a Finance Bill.

Dilatory motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Standing Order No. 13

3. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.

Private Business

4. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be

following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining Proceedings on Consideration and the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and (subject to paragraph 5(2) of this Order) shall be brought to a conclusion or interrupted, as the case may be, at the times shown in the following Table:

brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others) that is to say—

1. (a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
2. (b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
3. (c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under paragraph 1(1) of this Order.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion or interruption of any Proceedings which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion at a stated time on that day shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion under Standing Order No. 9.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, the bringing to a conclusion or interruption, as the case may be, of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion or interrupted on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

6.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

7. Nothing in this Order shall—

1. (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Interpretation

8. In this Order— 'allotted day' means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; 'the Bill' means the Finance Bill.

It is with great regret that I move this motion. There are, of course, many precedents for timetable motions under Governments of both parties. One of my predecessors, the late Mr. Iain Macleod, introduced four guillotine motions in one Session. This is the first that I have moved in a year. As for the record of the two parties, since the Second World War, Conservative Governments have introduced 21 timetable motions and Labour Governments have introduced eight.

Mr. Macleod said that no Leader of the House had to argue that there might be occasions on which a guillotine was justified. He went on to say that what he always had to argue was that the particular motion before the House was justified. That I now seek to do.

Sir John Hall (Wycombe)

The right hon. Gentleman has given the House information about the number of times on which guillotine motions have been moved. How many times have they been moved to closure a Finance Bill?

Mr. Short

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will answer all these points. I think that the last occasion was in 1968.

I hope that the Opposition will spare us any ritual objections to timetable motions as such, when we recall the guillotines which they imposed on the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Act, the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, the European Communities Act and the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act.

I should have preferred that we completed our proceedings on the Finance Bill with no need for a timetable motion. I wish that the two sides of the House could have agreed on sensible arrangements for allocating what is by any standard a generous amount of time for the remaining stages of the Bill. That would have allowed us to complete our consideration of it in a sensible manner. Unfortunately, such an agreement proved to be unobtainable. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary sought such an understanding last week in discussion with the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) but could not obtain it.

The reason why he could not do so became only too clear yesterday morning, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was heard saying on the BBC "Today" programme: Oh, it isn't a question of extra time to debate in the House. We shall be using our time in the House to use every legitimate parliamentary means to secure the withdrawal of this tax and that's the object of our debate this week…. And we are entitled to use every legitimate parliamentary means to stop this tax and we intend to try and do just that. This intention by the Opposition to use every device, every stratagem, to block the Bill's progress was only too clearly confirmed yesterday when there were large numbers of Opposition points of order—or I should say, as Mr. Speaker said, the same point of order made over and over again—and when the House was required to spend over three hours discussing a procedural motion, the terms of which had already been agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and which were intended to honour the promise that I made to the House last Thursday. Yet the Opposition felt it necessary to debate the motion for three hours.

I make no complaint whatever about all this. The Opposition are entitled to proceed in any way they wish, so long as they remain within the rules of order—which is entirely a matter for the Chair. Whether the public outside are impressed with all this is another matter altogether. Our system of parliamentary democracy requires that Oppositions shall be allowed to do everything in their power to prevent a Bill with which they profoundly disagree from reaching the Statute Book. On the other hand, our system requires that a Government with a majority in this House should be entitled to ask the House at the end of the day to pass the legislation for which they have a mandate from the electorate—

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

Nonsense.

Mr. Short

We had a million more votes than the hon. and learned Member's party.

Every reasonable opportunity must be provided for discussion of the Bill and amendments to it. But when that has been done, the Government are entitled to ask for its enactment. That is what has happened in this case.

However much the Opposition may dislike the capital transfer tax, there can be no doubt that we have a mandate to introduce it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was included in our election manifesto last February, it was repeated in October, we published a White Paper about it in August and we fought the last election on it.

As soon as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened his Budget on 12th November, it was known to all hon. Members that the Finance Bill must receive the Royal Assent within four months of the passing of the Budget Resolutions—that is, by 14th March—

in accordance with the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. In that broad sense, the timetable for all Finance Bills is laid down from the start.

The Government have certainly wasted no time. The Bill had its Second Reading on 17th December, and its Committee stage on the Floor started on 15th January and finished on 22nd January. It entered Standing Committee the following day and the Committee reported on 19th February. Allowing 15 hours for dinner breaks, the Bill was in Committee, in the House and upstairs, for about 160 hours. By any recent standards that is a generous allowance of time, even for a highly controversial Bill. It would be appropriate indeed to pay tribute to the energy, stamina and determination of the Standing Committee—both sides. I do not know how they stood it.

I think that the House will also acknowledge the patient, resilient and reasonable manner in which the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary responded to the points put to them. When serious points were made, they did not just brush them aside but responded seriously and helpfully to them. Indeed, that willingness to meet the points made in Committee is one of the reasons for the sizeable number of Government amendments on Report.

Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham and Crawley)

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the distinction between applying a timetable motion on Finance Bills and doing so on other legislation? Does he recognise that, on the only other occasion since the war when there was a guillotine motion on a Finance Bill, time was allotted for 11 further sittings for discussion after the guillotine had been applied? Does he not now recognise that the very amendments of which he speaks, for which the Government are entirely responsible, require far more time than is allotted in the motion?

Mr. Short

My right hon. Friend will deal with that point when he replies. Whether the vast number of Opposition amendments now flooding the order paper are all points of substance is not for me to say. No doubt the Chief Secretary will comment on that, too. All that I would say is that it is clear from the sheer volume of those amendments and from the very slow progress made yesterday that the Opposition are seeking to prolong proceedings on the Bill to the point at which it cannot be completed in the time laid down by statute. There is no doubt about that whatever.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Short

This is a very short debate, and many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Emery

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a most relevant point with which he has not dealt in his speech. Will he tell the House how many new Government amendments—not Opposition amendments—have to be considered during the Report stage, with the same consideration as would be given in Committee? I believe that there is a large number. The House should know how many there are.

Mr. Short

Almost all the Government amendments are concessions.

Mr. Emery

How many?

Mr. Short

Almost all.

Hon. Members

How many?

Mr. Short

I do not know how many, but a very large number.

No one can argue that insufficient time has been allowed for the remaining stages. Since 1909 there has been only one Finance Bill for which more time has been allowed for Report and Third Reading. What we have now to decide is a sensible way of allocating the very reasonable amount of time available.

The motion before the House would provide for us to complete, as follows, first, all the non-capital transfer tax clauses and schedules by tonight; second, the new clauses on capital transfer tax or estate duty by tomorrow night; and all the remaining amendments, new schedules and the Third Reading by Monday night—that is, we would have both Thursday and Monday for these. I would draw the particular attention of the House to this last point, as the way in which this part of the order has been printed may give rise to some doubt about it.

Of course, if the Opposition would prefer some different arrangement for allocating the time or some supplementary arrangement for the proceedings on any of the allotted days, I should be only to glad to consider this. Paragraph 6(1) of the motion provides for any necessary supplemental orders.

At the end of the proceedings tonight, tomorrow night or on Monday night, paragraph 5(1) of the motion provides that any amendments or new clauses not moved by a member of the Government and relating to those parts of the Bill to be completed on that day, should fall. The Question would then be put without further debate on amendments or new clauses moved by a member of the Govment. The reason for this provision is that, as I have just said, virtually all the Government amendments are in fact concessions. Clearly the House would wish such amendments to be taken.

On Thursday night the motion simply provides for the proceedings to be interrupted at midnight, and nothing more. They would then continue on Monday at the point at which they were left over. The remaining provisions are common form, but my right hon. Friend will gladly deal with any points made in the debate about them when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby)

The right hon. Gentleman has said very kindly that he is prepared to entertain suggestions from the Opposition side of the House as to changes in the timetable. Why is it that the debates have to stop at midnight and not at a later hour? The right hon. Gentleman could still have his days and get the Pill through Report by the day he wishes, but he could allow more time for the discussion of this very important tax.

Mr. Short

The finishing time each day is the part of the motion which is not negotiable, but the allocation of the time is. We believe that the debates will be all the better for finishing at a reasonable hour.

I would say once again that if the Opposition want to use the available time differently, this could easily be arranged. In particular, if they would prefer to dispense with a Third Reading so as to give more time for the Report stage, that is entirely open to them.

This motion is needed to enable the proceedings on the Finance Bill, for which we have a mandate front the electorate, to be completed in a fair and reasonable way by the date prescribed by law.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

I have never believed that guillotine debates have been made any more interesting by the number of precedents that the introductory speeches have contained. I am bound to say that I have not bothered myself with them. I should like to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that I have no ritual objections to timetable motions as such. I think that we should do much better on some occasions to limit our debates to reasonable lengths. [Interruption.] It would be very helpful indeed if Oppositions could make their perfectly reasonable points without a long stream, a Niagara, of tiresome interruptions by people who are determined to ruin discussion and not to contribute to it. I refer specifically to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

I have always been among the most charitable of men. I wish to see the best in everyone.

An Hon. Member

Do not look in the mirror.

Mr. Peyton

I almost wish that I could look in a mirror rather than face hon. Members on the Government side of the House.

As I was saying, I try to take the most favourable view, even of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side. But I was a little surprised this afternoon when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House suddenly said, quite baldly, "I make no complaint". We were not waiting for any complaints from him. We have some complaints to make. It is entirely from the Opposition side of the House that the complaints will come. We hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to them.

I should like to take the opportunity—rare in these days—of agreeing with the Leader of the House on one point, and that is saluting the stamina of the Standing Committee. One can only hope that Government Members got some satisfaction out of it. My right hon. and hon. Friends got none at all; of that I am sure. Nevertheless, they gallantly did their duty in attempting to secure improvements to a very nasty measure.

I am concerned—because I think that this goes to the right hon. Gentleman's good faith—to know whether the Leader of the House is really satisfied that his undertakings to give five days on Report have been discharged by the arrangements now made. I must tell him that I am not. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider the statements that he has made on a number of occasions, together with the questions that I have asked in reply, I think that he will find—or at least, any independent judge would conclude this—that he was bound in honour to give five full days on Report.

The Government's handling of the measure has not been received with wild acclamation in the Press. Perhaps the best comment was: A lesson in how not to legislate. But there was one more to which I particularly call the attention of the Government. It appeared in the Financial Times of 1st March: The more one looks at this Bill, the more one finds in it to criticise. It is by far the most incompetently drafted and ill-conceived legislation since 1965, and the sooner the Government drops the whole scheme for a year's proper consideration the better. My suggestion to the House is that there should be two main aims of legislation, particularly where tax is concerned. It should be fair. I am not quite certain whether the Government really aim to be fair; but that would certainly be the aim of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The second main purpose is that it should be clear and certain. Not even the most enthusiastic supporters of this wretched measure could possibly claim that it was clear.

I wonder very much what in the long run will be the effect of a measure such as this on the already stretched relations which exist between the Inland Revenue and the public. I know that some Labour Members and some members of the Government have rather fanciful ideas about the Inland Revenue. The other day the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Social Services compared the Inland Revenue with Robin Hood. That seemed to be a slight flight of fantasy. I am not quite sure whether we are now to be told that she is Maid Marion.

To impose this kind of legislation upon the public when it is so ill-digested, ill-designed and ill-thought-out will dangerously worsen the relations between the Government machine and the public.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

Will my right hon. Friend add a third point to the two that he has already made? Does he agree that there should not be any taxation without discussion?

Mr. Peyton

Indeed. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Of course, my hon. Friend is right—[Interruption.] In discussing a motion like this in a Parliament where the aim of the Government is to terminate and shorten discussion it is interesting to observe how hard Labour Members find it to stomach the views of those who do not agree with them. If any hon. Members wish to interrupt me, they are perfectly free to do so. I shall gladly give way. I point out, however, that when Labour Members sprinkle sedentary interruptions over our affairs they do little credit to themselves and bring no glory to Parliament.

Mr. John Tomlinson (Meriden)

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the people who did not like listening to arguments with which they disagreed were his own supporters in Standing Committee. They seemed to run away with remarkable regularity, to such effect that the Government were winning votes in Standing Committee, despite the Opposition's wholehearted opposition, by 16 votes to 5 in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. Peyton

Looking at the hon. Gentleman and hearing what he has to say, I am bound to say that I have the utmost sympathy with my hon. Friends who wished to get away.

The Chancellor is introducing two new taxes. He has properly referred the wealth tax to a Select Committee. It is a complicated matter which clearly needs a good deal of preparatory thought before it can be introduced into Parliament. By contrast, the Government have plunged into the capital transfer tax on the ground, presumably, that some immediate meal had to be thrown to the Left wing wolves. Perhaps it was considered that they could wait until later for the rest of the meal—[Interruption.] Again and again the Patronage Secretary is making speeches from a sedentary position. I hope very much that one day he will cease to be Patronage Secretary. Perhaps we shall then be able to hear him making speeches from the Dispatch Box. I hope that they will be even more sensible than some of the interventions which he so constantly makes from his present position. I said to the right hon. Gentleman the other day that he has achieved the status of being the most garrulous Chief Whip of all time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish)

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I never said a word.

Mr. Peyton

Then we can only tender our profound sympathy. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman does not even know when he is talking. What concerns and worries my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Government have shown little concern for the impact of this legislation upon farms, woodlands, small businesses, charities and gifts. Initially it was apparently the Chancellor's intention to put gifts to families on the same basis as gifts to anybody else. It seems that that has gone by the board. I am bound to say that I recognise that fact with some gratitude. None the less, I do not believe that the Government have yet hoisted in just how bitter many people will feel throughout the country. They are not all rich, prosperous, bloated plutocrats but people who are desperately trying to run businesses in a difficult climate. In many cases this burden will make it almost impossible for them to do so. The way in which the Government continue to dismiss that danger and to treat it lightly is wrong and unfair. It is something for which they will be roundly and properly condemned in the near future.

I now turn to the painful question of how the Bill was handled in Standing Committee. The presence of the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary really requires one in kindness to draw a veil over those proceedings. Suffice it to say, they have earned no laurels for the way in which they handled the proceedings in Standing Committee. The Leader of the House, in opening the debate, referred perfectly properly to the fact that there had been some 160 hours of debate in Committee on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

rose—

Mr. Peyton

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. The point that I wish to make is that no Treasury Minister ever complained, so far as I am aware in Standing Committee that the Opposition were filibustering or holding up the progress of the Bill. Indeed, the situation was very much the reverse. It is my understanding that avoidable delays were caused because Treasury Ministers were not always as familiar as one would have hoped them to be with all the features of the nasty little creature that they had sired.

I understand that 167 Government amendments have been tabled. The Leader of the House referred to the many Opposition amendments and wondered how many of them were genuine. The Opposition have tabled roughly 700 amendments for consideration. I hope that the Government will take them seriously even in the limited time that is available. I am concerned with the 167 amendments which have come from the Government. Many of them are long and complex, and there should have been very much more time for mature consideration to be given to them by people inside and outside the House.

There have been repeated requests made to the Leader of the House for more time to consider the Government amendments. All that the right hon. Gentleman has ever been willing to say is "I assure the House that there will be sufficient time for consideration to be given to them." Never has the right hon. Gentleman even adverted to the need to give those outside the House who will be affected by the Bill an opportunity to attempt to understand what is contained in the very complicated amendments which the Government have tabled.

Sir John Hall

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that to debate the very large number of Government amendments, some of which are highly complex, allowing a short time for each one would take about 40 hours?

Mr. Peyton

I quite agree. One of the questions which Mr. Patrick Hutber raised in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday was: how on earth can these vital amendments be properly considered in the time? Mr. Hutber mentioned three amendments the results of which seem to be very obscure. I wonder whether the Chancellor or whichever Treasury Minister replies will be good enough to answer the points which are raised in Mr. Hutber's article.

Mr. Lawson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the allotted time works out at less than 10 minutes per Government amendment, assuming no discussion of Opposition amendments whatsoever?

Mr. Peyton

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that monstrous fact. The Government have plainly reached—I can understand this attitude of theirs—a position of total despair about this wretched Bill, and the sooner they can put the wraps over it the better, and the less probing it receives from Parliament and from my hon. Friend in particular, the better obviously they will be pleased.

Mr. Denis Skinner (Bolsover)

The right hon. Gentleman referred to someone called Patrick Hutber who writes the City columns in the Sunday Telegraph. Is it a fact that this same man was the wizard behind John Bloom?

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman must pursue his nasty feuds elsewhere. He almost always manages to keep his interruptions well in character. He has succeeded on this occasion.

The questions the Government must answer are: first, are they satisfied that those outside the House have had a reasonable chance to consider the Government's amended proposals; and, secondly, did they ever really intend that those outside should have such a chance?

Mr. Molloy

I readily understand that it is the responsibility of any Opposition to oppose any guillotine motion, and, if they did not, they would not be doing their proper job. Will not the right hon. Gentleman concede that he cannot legitimately claim that my right hon. and hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee should not be accorded any laurels simply because the Conservative Opposition failed to turn up or ran away long before the debates were finished? If the Opposition really represented the people outside—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)

Order. This is a three-hour debate and long interventions will take time that could be used for speeches.

Mr. Peyton

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for my error of judgment in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

The politics of envy have drawn the Government, first, into a dislike of success and, secondly, into showing a positive hostility to wealth which leaves one astonished that only the other day they were all muttering the chorus question—why no investment? If they would only look at themselves and at what they are now doing and saying and then ask that question again, they might find the answers very near home on their own desks.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peyton

No. I have already learned a very sharp lesson from the hon. Gentleman's two neighbours.

Lastly, what is under charge here is the good faith of the Labour Party. We on this side of the House freely acknowledge that the Leader of the House has a very difficult task in reconciling the interests of the House of Commons with those of the Government, and particularly does this apply to this Government. His failure to do so is something which we would always regret. What we deplore is the fact that he never even tries and so has forfeited wholly the confidence of this side of the House.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

The other day we decided as an experiment that the proceedings of the House should be broadcast on radio. I do not know whether to be glad or sad that that experiment has not yet started.

I think I am sad, because I believe that the public would be reassured to see how very quick the House is to react to clear evidence that it is being misled by the Government and equally quick to accept without reservation a statement made by a Minister that his misleading is due to a misunderstanding.

In another sense I am glad that our proceedings are not being broadcast, because I am sure that the public would have been so kind as the House has been today to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and I am not sure that they would trust him as much as no doubt they now do if they had heard for themselves the arrogant contempt with which he, as Leader of the House, announced this guillotine motion earlier this morning, with no explanation, after the closure had been already decided and with no possibility of his being questioned at that time about his motives or reasons. The public would not have been satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's wholly inadequate justification of the need for a timetable on this Finance Bill.

Finance Bills should never be guillotined. With the sole unfortunate exception of the 1931 Bill they never have been, except by Labour Governments—

Mr. Alf Bates (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)

1967.

Mr. Macmillan

—in 1968 and now in 1975, in both cases bringing in ill-thought out new schemes which are damaging major interests covering great aspects of our national life.

The Leader of the House and hon. Members below the Gangway in their seated interventions have tried to make out that the capital transfer tax is of little importance except to a few very rich men, most of whom, they imply, are crooks anyway, otherwise, how could they be rich?

That is the view of right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway. I do not think that it is wholly the view of the Government who, as far as one can judge from the enthusiasm with which they pursue every contradictory aspect of their policies, still believe in a mixed economy in which private enterprise has a function.

The new tax and the 167 amendments which the debates in Standing Committee have produced on the Notice Paper in the names of Treasury Ministers affect outside interests which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, have had no time to consider their new position, because these amendments have been only recently published and are very complicated. They may be minority interests, but that is no reason why they should be shabbily treated by the Government. There are other minorities affected by the Bill, including 10¼ million members of trade unions out of the 22 million men and women at work.

I am not complaining about the need to look after minorities. I am merely saying that if minorities are important they are all important. That is partly because many of them involve far more people than seems to be the case at first sight and the ramifications of their activities are important to a large number of ordinary men and women on the shop floor.

There is no doubt of the effect, on every kind of business, of the tax which we are forced to discuss so inadequately. Those businesses which are particularly affected are the unquoted companies which employ one-third of the 22 million men and women at work—over half the employees of the private sector—and it is their jobs that are at risk—[Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway will not be laughing when their constituents complain to them about the bankruptcies of their employers and the difficulties of getting new work. I am glad that those hon. Members have shown that they are opposed to any form of family business or any unquoted company, large or small.

I am worried that the tax will have an unpredictable effect upon a very large but so far unknown number of people. There is no reason to curtail discussion of it, except for the incompetence of the Government. When the Conservatives introduced major tax changes our Treasury Ministers did not find it necessary to have a guillotine. In 1971 we brought in the unification of tax and produced the option mortgage scheme, the Bill occupied 69 clauses and 14 schedules. In 1972 there were 56 clauses on VAT alone, measures on the income and corporation taxes which affected companies' distributions, and the abolition of the SET, which covered 49 clauses. There were 134 clauses and 28 schedules in all. We did not need a guillotine to get them properly discussed, because we had done the work before- hand. I accuse Treasury Ministers of having brought in an ill-prepared scheme which was announced in the Budget but was not even worked out in time for the December Finance Bill.

The Government's laxity will punish the interests adversely affected through the failure to get adequate discussion. It is failure to discuss these matters which helps to produce bad legislation. Perhaps we are luckier than we were in 1968. At least it is only the Report stage of this Bill which is being guillotined. In 1968 it was the Committee stage, too, as far as I can remember. On the other hand, this Bill is worse than the 1968 Act, in that that Act at least damaged only individuals. Now we are not to discuss adequately and properly how this tax will damage the future of this country and adversely affect its capacity to achieve the economic recovery which we are all seeking.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. John Tomlinson (Meriden)

We are seeing this afternoon yet another example of the mock hysteria that the Opposition seem to be able to turn on and off like a tap. They are making complaints about lack of time to discuss the capital transfer tax and yet yesterday and this afternoon they engaged in generalised time wasting when they could have been discussing important amendments upon which they say they want to spend more time.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

Will the hon. Member accept once and for all that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are quite prepared to sit through the night every night this week and through the weekend if necessary?

Mr. Tomlinson

I put as much value on what the hon. Member said as I did in the performance of that full-hearted opposition in Standing Committee, when, in the early hours of the morning, the Government's majority increased progressively as the light dawned. When we sat all through the night the Government's majority started off at one and went through to three, five, and seven, and finished at 11 in the small hours of the morning. The record is there for anyone to see.

Sir John Hall

Does the hon. Member recall that throughout the proceedings in Standing Committee the burden of debate was borne almost entirely by Members of the Opposition? During the early hours of the morning most Government Members were spending their time outside the Committee, turning up only for votes. They were resting while the burden of this debate was put on the Opposition.

Mr. Tomlinson

I cannot accept that the burden of debate was borne by the Opposition. I had to spend many hours there listening to Conservative Members, and I found that just as much of a burden.

What interests me about this debate and the debate yesterday is the number of allegations that have been made that the capital transfer tax has not been understood, and how this lack of understanding is a reason for the House needing more time to consider it. The exact opposite is the truth. There is a precise understanding of the effects of capital transfer tax and it is this precise understanding that has prompted the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) to try to use every device at his command to ensure that Part III of the Bill does not reach the statute book. He is motivated not by an ignorance of the tax but by the fact that he is all too familiar with it. A similar awareness on our part of the meaning of the tax has resolved us to make sure that it becomes law as soon as possible.

Some extremely insulting comments were made about my right hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. I assure all hon. Members who did not have the privilege of attending the Standing Committee and of hearing their performance, that the Ministers met with the universal respect of all Government Members and, I suspect, of many more people besides. So highly did we regard their efforts that at the end of the proceedings my hon. Friends and I were even prepared to chip in 50p so that we could buy them a drink in recognition of their valiant efforts. The glass of champage that each of them had was in recognition of their sterling performance and of the way they had conducted themselves through the long hours.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the reasons we drank champagne at the end of the Committee was that the tax was still basically intact, and that is what all the synthetic row was about?

Mr. Tomlinson

I agree with my hon. Friend on that score.

We were told that there were not many time-wasting devices during the Committee stage. I can remember when we spent no fewer than 8¼ hours debating multinational corporations. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was seeking to take measures in the Bill to stop tax avoidance dodges and to stop the problems of transfer pricing mechanisms in multinational companies. The 8¼ hours of debate on that one item were clear evidence that substantial time wasting was going on in Committee.

The 167 Government amendments have been referred to by a number of Opposition Members. If there is to be so much concern that the Government are giving so many concessions away, my right hon. Friend will not meet much resistance from the Government benches if he decides selectively to withdraw some of those amendments in order to give the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for example, more than 10 minutes per amendment for those that are left. We shall understand the difficulties that he faces.

I turn to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), who waxed eloquent about the wrong use of a timetable motion for ill-thought-out schemes. He said that it was a Labour Government that used such a motion previously on a Finance Bill.

If we are to be concerned only with ill-thought-out schemes, let us look at some of the measures that the last Conservative Government saw fit to guillotine, and see how well thought out they were. For example, the Industrial Relations Act was not only timetabled on Report, but was guillotined in Committee and on Third Reading. I believe that even the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), admitted that that was an ill-thought-out measure. Certainly, with the passage of time, it did not do him much good. The Housing Finance Act was also guillotined by the last Government in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, as was the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act. The European Communities legislation was guillotined in Committee. The counter-inflation measures, which were directly responsible for the confrontation with the miners, and thus for the fact that the Conservatives are now on the Opposition benches, were guillotined at all three stages. When people start talking about ill-thought-out measures and the necessity for not having guillotine motions on such measures, they should look into the more recent history in which they have been involved.

Sir John Hall

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the view has been expressed from the Opposition benches that from time to time the guillotine motion is necessary and justified? Does he also agree that it is against the general traditions of the House to guillotine a Finance Bill? Will he tell us when a Finance Bill was last guillotined by a Conservative administration?

Mr. Tomlinson

If the performances over the last two days are in accord with the general traditions of the House, I am not very impressed by them, and I do not regard them as being an important argument against the motion.

The right hon. Member for Farnham was arguing the need to consult outside interests and the paramount importance of such consultation. He spoke about the need to consult minority groups such as trade unions, as he referred to them. I remember that when his right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) had responsibility for such outside consultations on the Industrial Relations Act, he made a statement to the effect that he would consult on principles, but not details. That was precisely why the consultations with the trade union movement broke down.

Mr. Macmillan

Perhaps I telescoped my remarks in an effort to be brief, with the result that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I was referring to taxation schemes. My argument was that Finance Bills should never be guillotined. Part of the reason why minority interests are so important in connection with any Finance Bill is that they are often the people who are used by the Government as tax gatherers. They are the people who have to be able to work all this Bill—the shopkeepers and others.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the same rule must apply to everyone: short interventions, please.

Mr. Tomlinson

There is an exact parallel with the Industrial Relations Act, because that Act taxed trade unions, by the process of registration or non-registration, to the tune of £10 million. That is something we have put right in this Bill in the Committee of the whole House.

It is right that we should pass the motion. Capital transfer tax is exceedingly important to my constituents. I am sure they are all aware that the rate of capital transfer tax is lower than the rate of estate duty tax—for those who paid it. The new tax will be of substantial benefit to the majority of my constituents who paid their taxes and did not seek to avoid them. The ease of avoidance is the major reason why so many Opposition Members seek to retain estate duties and oppose the capital transfer tax.

There is an impatience on the Government side of the House—which I am sure is shared by the majority of my constituents—to get this radical taxation reform on to the statute book. It will produce a greater equity of contribution to our national economic well-being, and as such it should go on to the statute book as speedily as possible.

We can no longer countenance delay. The motion must be passed, and we must get the capital transfer tax into effect as soon as possible.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

There are licensed occasions for clowning, and there are also licensed occasions for humbug. It is well understood in the House that the periodical debates upon a guillotine motion belong to the latter category. Hon. Members sit scarcely concealing their cynicism when they hear the same defence and attack repeatedly from reciprocal sides of the Chamber. But there is a certain danger in our getting used to this shuttlecock, this navette, in that we may not perceive the gradual shifting of the ground. We may not perceive an important extension of the use of the guillotine which perhaps none of us might seriously wish to accept.

It is hard to deny at this time of day that the use of the timetable motion for legislation has become an accepted part of the procedure of the House, though it is the business of every Opposition, confronted with a timetable motion, to oppose it, whatever may be the legislation to which it is applied. Indeed, I believe it would be wrong for an Opposition not to do so; and it is for that reason that in two hours or so my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will go into the Lobby against the motion.

However, there is something special—not, unfortunately, unprecedented—about the occasion of this timetable motion. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) was right to emphasise that the application of a timetable motion to a Finance Bill puts it into a different category.

Mr. Molloy

The argument about the Finance Bill being in a special category was advanced before the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Does he not concede that it was equally indefensible that a Bill which could unjustifiably put dockers in gaol was subjected to a guillotine motion?

Mr. Powell

I do not agree, because the financial procedure of the House is integral to its powers in a sense which cannot be predicated of any other sort of legislation.

I fancy that the curious omission of that point from the speech of the Shadow Leader of the House might have been a tacit or unconscious admission of guilt, namely, the recollection that it was the Conservative Party which had used a timetable motion in 1972, with the assistance of the Liberal Party, to force through the House what could otherwise not have been forced through—the renunciation of its exclusive right to tax. It is therefore perhaps more appropriate that this vital point about the special nature of our financial procedures should not come specific-p ally from the official Opposition Front Bench.

The House will be poorer as a result of the passing of this motion, in a way that it is not impoverished by the passing of most other guillotine motions. As with most such motions, and most such steps of deterioration, the blame is not all on one side of the House. When the breakdown in communications, the breakdown in that understanding on which the existence and management of this Chamber depends, occurs, it is never due wholly to the default of one side.

In this case, I do not see how it can be denied that the Government have mismanaged their timetable. They were under great difficulties owing to the date of the General Election and the necessity—or so they believed—of introducing a second Finance Bill in 1974. Nevertheless, it is indisputably mismanagement to be still dealing with a Finance Bill in the House of Commons in the week before the last day for Royal Assent under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. Whatever else the managers of Government business should avoid, they should avoid getting themselves driven into that corner. There can be little excuse for it.

That is the Government's contribution to the failure which we are recording by having this motion before us. But there was also a false tactical decision by the official Opposition. They decided that they should mark their objection to one of the central features of the Bill by driving the Government into either guillotining the remaining stages of the Bill or abandoning the measure altogether, which for any Government would be impossible.

Sir Geoffrey Howe (Surrey, East)

I recognise the way in which my right hon. Friend seeks to put a balanced view of responsibility, but does he not acknowledge that there was a third possibility which was, and still is, open to the Government, namely, to recommit the Bill so as to allow the new tax to be considered by a Select Committee and still proceed with the measure which they must get through by the magic date next week?

Mr. Powell

Just so. The Opposition decided that they must drive the Government up against—what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has re-stated in another form—the abandonment of the Bill, or else the repetition of the one precedent for guillotining a Finance Bill. I do not believe that the sincerity or effectiveness of their opposition to the capital transfer tax has been enhanced by that decision. It was a mistaken tactical decision which, by enforcing this motion, has impoverished the House.

Sir John Hall

It was a question not of forcing the Government to abandon their measure but of requiring them to give further consideration to complex provisions which would have far-reaching consequences and therefore of asking them to give more time by referring them to a Select Committee.

Mr. Powell

I have some reflections to offer the House in a moment which bear on that point.

Let me first re-emphasise, rather in opposition to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), the special position of a Finance Bill and the particular undesirability of the precedent, once established, which we are broadening; for let there be no doubt that, having had a Finance Bill guillotined on two occasions, a sort of Gresham's Law will begin to operate. Oppositions will consider themselves to be doing less than is expected of them by the keenest of their supporters if, whenever there is a major element in a Finance Bill which is objectionable to them, they do not force the Government—which every Opposition can do if they want—into guillotining the Bill. The danger we face is that we shall have timetabled Finance Bills as a matter of course. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) want to prove that my argument is nonsense?

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

I apologise to my right hon. Friend. It was impolite of me to make a comment from a sedentary position. However, because the Opposition feel strongly about a particular financial measure, it is not necessarily the case that by the House debating it at length the Government are forced into abandoning it.

Mr. Powell

Of course that is so. There is a difference between debating a measure thoroughly and at length and debating it in such a manner, and moving amendments to it in such a manner, that it is evident and inevitable that the outcome will be a guillotine motion.

I return to my point that, once this precedent is broadened, it takes future Oppositions prisoner, as it were, and creates a presumption that if there is something seriously objectionable to them in a Finance Bill there must be a timetable motion. It follows all too easily from that that a timetable motion is introduced from the start, on the ground that if there is to be a timetable motion sooner or later we may as well have it at the beginning.

A timetable motion on a Finance Bill is specially damaging—my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham made the point acutely—for the reason that the rights of minorities outside the House are specially involved in Finance Bills, perhaps more than in any other part of our procedure, with the possible exception of the Consolidated Fund, which nowadays is a fossilised part of our procedure. It is the ability of a small number of hon. Members or, as I have often known, even an individual Member, who is convinced of an injustice or an error which is capable of being remedied, to have it debated on the Floor of the House by facing the unpopularity of tiring the House and delaying it, which is one of the ultimate safeguards which we still preserve. That safeguard would be destroyed if it became accepted that a timetable motion was applicable on the same basis to a Finance Bill as to any other legislation.

I have been reflecting in the past 24 hours on the strange course of events in handling Finance Bills over the last quarter of a century. In the first few years after 1950, when I was first a Member of the House, the passage of a Finance Bill was accompanied, in Committee and on Report, by night after night of all-night sittings. It was passed by exhaustion in those early years of the 1950s. Then there was a sudden change; and for a whole series of years, although in some years there was not even a closure moved, the Finance Bill was fully debated on the Floor of the House both in Committee and on Report within reasonable hours. Then we came to the 1960s, and the fashion in the 1960s for reforming the procedure of the House by the use of Committees. We entered upon the habit of splitting the Finance Bill and sending it upstairs for examination—so it was said at first—of the technical and relatively unimportant matters while keeping the major subjects on the Floor of the House.

I am sorry to say that we have grown beyond that. What happens now is that on the Floor of the House we have four rather dull artificial Second Reading debates, and then the examination of what really matters in the Bill is carried out hour after hour by 35 or thereabouts hon. Members upstairs.

Mr. Skinner

In the main, by the Opposition.

Mr. Powell

As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, in the main, by the Opposition.

The difficulty in which the Government and the House find themselves today is a result of this Committee procedure and of its impact upon the consideration of the Finance Bill. Instead of having had the intensive discussions of matters on which large numbers of hon. Members feel strongly at the proper time, in Committee on the Floor of the House, until late at night—in some cases right through the night, with the whole House having to stay up—we have put the Bill into commission. So it comes down to us on Report—with a perfectly generous allocation, by common comparison of standards, of five days—as a virtually new Bill from the point of view of most hon. Members. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) was on the same point as I am in feeling that we have not had the proper Committee consideration of the essential parts of the Bill that a Finance Bill requires. All of us who were not members of the Standing Committee have the feeling that there has been an inadequate understanding and an inadequate discussion of the central provisions of the Bill.

I hope, therefore, that we shall not in our collective wisdom treat this as just another of those timetable motions, with a smirk and a shrug of the shoulders. We have been brought face to face with a developing inadequacy in our procedure. I believe that we must bring the Finance Bill back on to the Floor of the House, where it belongs, for open-ended debate: I say that, because only when debate is open-ended is the public opinion of the House brought to bear upon those who-seek to participate in the debate. So I believe we shall have to consider how to bring the essence of the Finance Bill back on to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Sedgemore

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the skilled opposition which was brought to the Bill in Committee when Opposition Members used skilled advisers? How could that kind of opposition function in the House?

Mr. Powell

Far be it from me to wish that any hon. Members who take part in debate should be less than adequately and skilfully briefed; but the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has reminded us of one of the applications of Parkinson's Law—that debate expands to fill the time available. A great deal of the work which was done in 160 hours in Committee would have been done in many fewer hours on the Floor of the Chamber, and would have provided that preparation for Report and Third Reading which we are lacking and which has led to the motion.

After this experience, I hope that we shall be able to knit together again that common understanding on the conduct of our business—which has to be a less than public understanding—between both sides of the House, without which our affairs, and especially our financial affairs, cannot be properly, democratically and parliamentarily discussed, and that we shall, after this motion, avoid for the future, by the common efforts of both Front Benches and by re-thinking our whole procedure in the light of the past 25 years, any repetition of what we shall do this evening.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I shall follow to some extent upon the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He dealt not with this isolated issue but with the real problem of how to get controversial—and less controversial—legislation through the House. One reason why we have had this fracas during the past few days, and why such an inordinate number of points of order—usually the same ones—have been raised, is that the Opposition, particularly the Tories, came to believe in themselves after they got over the traumatic process of selecting their new Leader. To that extent the capital transfer tax became a virility symbol, to which they could all become closely attached.

That is not to say that there would not have been a hell of a row over the capital transfer tax, but, having got over their recent trauma, they wanted more than ever to have a go. The right hon. Gentleman touched upon that when he spoke about the general problem. Nevertheless, the Tories suffered from a malaise for a long period, until the election.

So we are here today—that sounds almost like the vicar—introducing another timetable motion, and we are witnessing the usual scenes produced by the Opposition suggesting that parliamentary democracy is almost in ruins. I am thankful that I am able to say this today. I was not silly enough when I was in opposition—or, to put it more precisely, on the other side of the House—to attack a timetable motion. I might have made a few noises from a sedentary position, but I do not believe that there is anything on the record.

I regard the timetable motion as an extension or elongation of our parliamentary devices. It is there. It can be used. It can be described as unpleasant, but so can many other devices that we use. I have good reason to understand the way in which many of the devices can be used and the way in which they can be made unpleasant. I might make a few comments about it, but I am not offended by the Government's introducing a timetable motion to rescue the battered remains of a Finance Bill that has been the subject of so many concessions in Committee. There are still more to come—I am told there are 165 Government amendments and concessions.

Such was the extent of the concessions made by the Chancellor, when he was announcing that he would look at that matter, that he would deal with the other matter and that he would examine another matter raised by the Opposition, that the Financial Times Index shot up five points every time he opened his mouth. It shot up from a low point of 146 to a topside of 300 while the concessions were being made. It is perhaps significant that when the Stock Exchange smelled something in the air yesterday the Financial Times Index dropped 14 points. I have no doubt that there are other reasons for that.

However, returning to the main question, I have the experience of the Housing Finance Committee proceedings behind me. The idea of that Bill was to collect money from approximately 6 million tenants—that is a great many taxpayers. The Government were taking half of it into the Exchequer. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, it was a farce. My job then was not dissimilar from the job of those on the Tory Opposition benches yesterday who were trying to halt a political measure that they detested. They had to do this because they had to support those who, largely—I am careful about my words—support them and who may increasingly support them in future.

What was my job on the Housing Finance Bill? My job was to ensure that we fought to the last drop of blood. I use those words because the Government spokesman at that time was the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Every time he opened his mouth he referred to his troops. He has never stopped doing so since. We did the job we were expected to do—for over 200 hours, night after night. This is no different, except that the rôles are reversed. We had hon. Members like the present Leader of the Opposition, who returned to her cosy little bed in time to get the television cameras lined up outside for the battle taking place at the time. We had the same sort of leader on our Committee, who found it necessary on one occasion to go home in his carpet slippers while we were slogging away upstairs.

Mr. Cormack

And the champagne?

Mr. Skinner

There was champagne. It is rather incredible but it was the Government side who drank it. The only difference was that they drank it in Committee Room No. 7—that hallowed room belonging to the Tribune Group from 4.15 on Monday. They drank champagne, not when the Bill had finished its Committee proceedings but when hon. Members like myself were slogging away in Committee. It was a farce.

It was supposed to be the essence of Opposition. I do not think it works. It is high time that the Government looked at the whole question not just of Finance Bills but of Bills, in Committee and on the Floor of the House. They should find out the number of hours that adequately fit the measure, whether it is controversial or less controversial. Provided that the Government can muster sufficient people in the Lobby to support a timetable motion, they can do all the other things I have described. That is the key.

There are many other ways of arranging a timetable without having a guillotine. It has been done on this Bill. Hon. Members get into a frenzy about the Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is back in good health and spirits. His opposite number and other hon. Members who took part in exchanges have found, surprisingly without consulting me or the right hon. Member for Down, South, an adequate number of days for the Finance Bill. There is a rumour that the proposed number was different from the one that finally transpired. Consultations did not take place between all 635 Members of Parliament. The days were arranged by a relatively few people. That in itself is a restriction. We might not like it and we might resent it. But it is a restriction. A great many less important and more trivial issues that surround the issue of getting legislation on the statute book are decided by relatively few people.

Mr. Mellish

After the usual channels had got up to the mischief which my hon. Friend thinks we had, we had to produce a motion that had to go before the House, and be debated and agreed by the House. That was after we had come to the general arrangement which we suggested would be for the convenience of the House. At the end of the day it was the House that decided.

Mr. Skinner

That is precisely the point I am making. If my right hon. Friend and those who engaged in the talks with him had not found a formula that guaranteed that 300 members would troop through the Lobby at the end of this timetable motion, all those talks would be to no avail.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

rose—

Mr. Skinner

I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but while I was sitting down waiting for my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make his point another of my hon. Friends whispered in my ear and indicated that he wished to speak. I understand the problem. We are here for only three hours. I shall refrain from mentioning many of the other points I wanted to raise.

If the decision in June—if it is June—by the British people is different from the challenge I shall be posing to them to come out of the European Economic Community this issue will appear minuscule in proportion. If we stay in the Community we shall be taking another step towards allowing not my right hon. Friend, not even some of his more or less important right hon. Friends within the Cabinet, to take decisions about taxing our people. We shall be allowing others to take those decisions. I shall be playing my part in that argument and that issue.

If we are to get any legislation through for which the Government, in most cases, but not all, have a mandate from the people to carry through irrespective of the argument about percentage polls, we shall have to have a fresh look at our methods. At the end of the day we shall have to come back to the formula I suggested in a rather loose form; namely, to decide from the beginning that a particular measure needs a certain number of days and hours. Then all hon. Members will be able to discuss the real questions. In this case it would be the capital transfer tax, argued not from one side of the House only but from both sides in the knowledge that we were getting to the heart of the measure. If that were the case we would refine these matters to a greater degree than we are able to do through the ad hoc way in which we are attempting to act at present.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

It falls to me to mark a great parliamentary event—namely, significant agreement between the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and not just on the question of Europe. In speeches by both of them there was a sense of disillusionment with our present procedures for approving and improving legislation, particularly in the remarks of the right hon. Gentlemen on the control of expenditure. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that the control of expenditure is a special matter in our procedures. He seeks to bring a little reason to the situation—and that, following the events of yesterday and today, is a welcome change.

In principle I am not opposed to timetabling. As the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, I and my Liberal colleagues supported a timetable motion on the European Communities Bill. Indeed, I can think of timetable motions which we would support again. I have argued in the House on previous occasions that there should be more timetabling so that we can consider Bills in a proper way without, as was the case with the Industrial Relations Bill, considering only a tiny part of it and then having to troop through the Lobby, without proper debate, on clause after clause. Unfortunately, such a suggestion is not possible in this House because as a legislative chamber it has sunk so low that reasonable debate is not now acceptable to the great majority of Members in all parts of the House.

We may regret the present situation. I certainly regret what has happened, but the present situation has arisen for a variety of reasons some constitutional, some historical. Certainly the solidified nature of our two-class, two-party system was obvious at the time of the Industrial Relations Act. This factor is obvious on the proposed tax, and is becoming obvious even in the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax. Again there is the question of the strength of Government patronage and the power of the Whips. This is an opinion held by Liberals, and it is held partly because we are Liberals and partly because we are members of a minority party.

Because there is no bipartisanship to important legislation, the only weapon which Oppositions have is the weapon of delay. I do not believe that it is a very effective weapon. It is not a very glorious thing to say to our constituents "I won a great battle because I stayed up until four, five or six in the morning". As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, I do not stay up until four or five in the morning, because if I did so my constituents would think that I was stark staring bonkers. If we cannot get our work undertaken during normal working hours, I do not think we are doing a good job.

With all the delays which the Opposition have been able to bring about over the years, the records show that the Government find it only too easy to get foolish, bad legislation through the House. In 1973 the House passed more than 60 Acts and over 2,000 statutory instruments. I wonder how many were worth passing. We are now in the throes of the third abortive—no doubt it will in the end be abortive—pensions scheme in seven years. One scheme got through all the procedures of the House, and yet another pension scheme passed virtually all the stages. Those provisions were prevented from coming into law only by the advent of chance—namely, a General Election. Such schemes would have been thoroughly bad, and I believe would have been accepted to be bad by all sides, even by their own "fathers". There are many other examples of such measures. The Industrial Relations Act and the legislation for bringing about local government reorganisation readily spring to mind.

The amendments which we are to consider in respect of the capital transfer tax are not, as the Lord President of the Council would have us believe, concessions. They have not come about because the Opposition, with splendid reason and delaying tactics, have managed to wring by force of argument some good reasonable concessions out of the Government. We shall consider the basic amendment on charities, which is a fundamental change and not just a minor or middling concession; and there is to be a fundamental change in respect of forestry operations, which does not seem to me to be a change for the better. Then there is the change in respect of political parties. It is incredible that the Government put that tax before the House of Commons without realising what they were doing to their political opponents. Now that they have realised what they were doing, they have changed that provision completely.

We have to ask ourselves why these provisions have had to be changed so greatly. Is it the fault, as some have suggested, of the benighted Government spokesmen in Committee? I do not believe that to be the case. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary put up too bad a show. I was not in the Standing Committee for all of the time, but on the few occasions when I was present in the small hours I thought the right hon. Gentleman showed immense resilience. I believe the tax in question was a bad tax from beginning to end because it was put up to the Government by civil servants in the Inland Revenue and was a mess. In our view, the tax is not bad in its purposes, and we support some of those purposes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not discuss the tax in detail but will discuss the timetable motion.

Mr. Pardoe

I have no intention of discussing the tax in detail. We shall have a few hours to discuss the tax even if the timetable motion is agreed. I am asking why the timetable motion is necessary and was seeking to emphasise that the Government amendments are not minor concessions but seek to change the tax out of all proportion.

I believe that our methods of approving and improving legislation at present are inadequate. The Standing Committee merely repeats the adversary politics which we conduct in this House. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Down, South, if we were to bring the Finance Bill back to the Floor of the House I do not think that we should do a very much better job in improving these taxes. We know what happens in Select Committees on these matters and to Green Papers on new taxes. The Green Paper on the tax credit scheme and, indeed, that on the wealth tax were appallingly amateurish. It is incredible—and would certainly appear to be incredible to any member of the United States Congress—that, the House having set up an all-party Select Committee to investigate a great new tax, the wealth tax, it is decided that it should sit once a week for two hours. That is the total sum of our labours in trying to get the tax right. If we mean business in improving legislation, we must take these matters more seriously. We certainly must treat these Green Papers seriously and examine them in detail.

The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council suggested that the Government have a mandate for this tax. I do not know what a mandate is.

Mr. Molloy

Then the hon. Gentleman is not qualified to speak about it.

Mr. Pardoe

I do not suppose hon. Gentlemen know what a mandate is either. The right hon. Gentleman certainly said that the Government had a mandate. But there are only two ways in which he can make such a claim. The first is that the Labour Party put before the electorate a tax which was almost exactly the same as the one we now face. It did no such thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that, while in opposition, he favoured a tax on the donee rather than on the donor. He has changed that opinion at the behest of the Inland Revenue, although that Department admitted that it carried out no adequate investigation of whether the donee or donor tax would best redistribute wealth. He cannot claim that he has a mandate because he put the tax to the people. He put to them an entirely different sort of tax, and one that we Liberals would have supported. However, I have no doubt that if we had done so the Conservatives would have been screaming and baying at us, since they are nothing more than a society for the preservation of the rich.

The second possibility is to argue that the Labour Party has a mandate because it secured a majority. At the last General Election only 39 per cent. of the people voted for the Government. My guess would be that, when all the thunder has died down, if free elections were held in any one of the Communist dictatorships east of the Iron Curtain now, more than 39 per cent. of the electorate would vote for the Government in power, with the possible exception of Czechoslovakia. That says something about our form of democracy and about any mandate which the Government claim.

If Conservative Members intend to shout down the Lord President, as they did on the question of the mandate, they will have to do something about it. They will have to ensure that the electoral procedures give a party a mandate to conduct legislation through the House.

The view of the Liberal Party is that this is the wrong tax and that it has been inadequately considered. It should be considered by the Select Committee on the Wealth Tax, since it is part of the taxation of wealth in its entirety. The Select Committee should get down to making a professional and businesslike job of it.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I suppose that it is inevitable that when a timetable motion is before the House, those who have formerly opposed such motions and the guillotine with great vehemence should suddenly discover that the idea has much relevance. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we have endured this procedure for the past 30-odd years, certainly since the war, in the House of Commons when successive Governments have found it necessary to introduce guillotine motions and successive Oppositions have found the idea reprehensible, anti-democratic and a means of destroying the status and principles of the House of Commons. I accept that argument from the right hon. Member for Down, South. However, I find it repugnant and nauseating to accept that argument from the Liberal Party and the majority of the Conservative Party, because in a much more insidious way they wish to remove this problem from us altogether.

Therefore, while people such as the right hon. Gentleman, myself and some of my hon. Friends have massive disagreements on issues as to how we believe our nation should be governed and on the sort of society we want to create, we believe that the argument has been decided and that the final arbiter should be the British people and not a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels. When we have this sort of argument, it behoves us all, irrespective of our views, to realise that it is not a bit of use pleading when the butchers of Brussels will not allow us to discuss these matters.

I want now to refer to one matter about which I disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South. I do not believe that we can raise objections to any measure, with the exception of the Finance Bill, going through the House of Commons being guillotined or time-tabled—

Mr. Tomlinson

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member has spoken. Others wish to speak. I have no doubt the hon. Member wishes to intervene to agree with his hon. Friend.

Mr. Tomlinson

In deference to the Chair, I shall resume my seat.

Mr. Molloy

I shall try to improve my hon. Friend's understanding privately after the debate.

If we all feel fervently about the way in which the House of Commons operates, it is logical that we should be concerned about its future. Both sides of the House will always be concerned about the measures to be debated and the manner in which we should debate them. I refer to issues which will affect the lives of all our people and end up on the statute book. People must believe that those measures will be effective for all time. However, that thought might inadvertently have running through it a thread of hypocrisy. If we experience scenes such as those which took place last night, and the furious speeches from the Opposition this afternoon, people may for the moment be indignant but they do not wish to abolish the system altogether and hand it over to someone else.

Back benchers on both sides of the House object to any form of government which takes away from us our right to express ourselves. From time to time I have felt that we should look at the principle of calling Privy Councillors ahead of back benchers. I can never see the logic of that. Occasions arise when Government supporters consider some points most important, whereas Opposition Members may not do so. We must seek a formula whereby we can acknowledge that we have different degrees of priority in our philosophy as to the legislation to be passed.

When the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) pushed through the Industrial Relations Bill, I thought it was wholly reprehensible that such a measure, touching so many lives, and resulting in men being incarcerated in gaol, should have been passed. It was so abominable that the Prime Minister of the day had to find a legal means of securing the release of our fellow men from gaol who ought never to have been put there and who never would have been put there had it not been for the fact that the measure was pushed through the House by means of the guillotine. That is what we have against it. How can I tell working men and women in my constituency that that was not all that important and that I should not have objected to a guillotine doing that sort of thing but that I must join the Conservative Party in objecting to it on this occasion because they are very worried that certain financial strictures which are to be imposed upon a tiny minority of very wealthy people should be allowed the most massive debate?

In my view, both should be allowed a massive debate. We should try to find ways and means in this House of Commons whereby no debate is curtailed. In time, I believe that we shall evolve such a system. It does not matter whether people are members of minority parties. The fact that they are here means that their status is no less and no greater than mine, irrespective of the side of the House on which I sit. They have the right to submit their views, and no administration or official Opposition should try to impose on them and to deny them that right We have this measure before us, and I have to acknowledge that ample time was provided in the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made the point that he sat for hours in the Standing Committee while various provisions were discussed in detail. Members of the Opposition found the length of sittings extremely tiring. They had to retire. Apparently, at one stage, there were five Opposition Members and 16 Government supporters present. When such a situation is reached in a Committee, this House cannot be blamed for decided that certain issues should be examined in detail upstairs in Standing Committees. That was the idea, and I am sure that when that was proposed and when we examined it we assumed that the Opposition would be there, especially on an important financial matter such as this. We assumed that Tory Members more than anyone else would be there, willing to slog it out through the night, as my own colleagues did on the Housing Finance Bill. If, therefore, those Opposition Members who served on the Standing Committee, as the result of some self-denying ordinance, decided for one reason or another that they could not attend, that is hardly a good argument for asking me to agree that there should be an extension of the time on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson (Hertfordshire, South)

I have no wish to spoil a good story, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the facts straight. For 80 per cent. of the time in Committee, the Opposition supplied the quorum. When 16 Government supporters were present on the occasion to which he referred, about 12 of them had to be dragged out of bed where they had been sleeping all night. If the hon. Gentleman cares to refer to the Official Report, he will see that almost every speech was made by an Opposition Member and that the contribution of Government supporters was either to sleep or to remain silent.

Mr. Molloy

If that is really so, I can understand why the Tory Opposition on the Committee are being described as a "bum" Opposition. They should have latched on to that. They could have ended the Committee, come to this House and complained that there was no quorum. They know that they botched their opposition in Committee, and they are now full of spleen and annoyance. They have had a traumatic experience, because the right hon. Member who misled them in that Committee has now been put in charge of leading the whole lot of them on the Floor of the House. How savage can luck be?

With one exception, I accept the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I can see a great deal of sense in them. I cannot help commenting, however, that the record shows that before the right hon. Gentleman disagreed with his erstwhile colleagues he at one time was a champion of the guillotine and the timetable motion. That was when he had Front Bench responsibilities. Nevertheless, I am always prepared to welcome a genuine convert to true democracy.

I referred to my one disagreement with the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South. That was when he said that there should never be a timetable motion on a Finance Bill but that it did not matter about other legislation. I disagree with him about that. However, I believe sincerely that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that right hon. and hon. Members will find means of avoiding scenes of the kind that we had last night and the business that we are going through today. It is absurd to use a number of hours to discuss whether we shall have a number of hours more to discuss a feature of any Bill. The time has come for us to find a solution. It has been going on for centuries. But it is not impossible to devise a method whereby we can improve our procedures and our ways of examining Bills which will result in legislation for our citizens.

Once we have passed this Bill, I hope that Members of all parties will get together—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will be able to arrange a meeting—with a view to finding new procedures whereby back benchers are not put in this position—

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Member of one of the minority parties to read a newspaper? I hardly feel that the Grand National has much to do with this debate.

Mr. Speaker

It is not in order to read a newspaper in the House or to bring one into the Chamber, unless it relates directly to the debate in progress.

Mr. Molloy

In defence of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson), when I was making my point about minority parties I had hoped that he was nodding his agreement with what I was saying, not reading a newspaper. What is more, I wish that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) had been listening to me instead of trying to read the newspaper over the shoulder of the hon. Member for Hamilton.

It is never easy for any back bencher to have to support his Front Bench colleagues who wish to impose a guillotine motion. We do it with great reluctance. I shall do so tonight for the reasons that I have outlined.

I hope, however, that it will not be beyond the wit of the leaders of all parties to devise a new procedure whereby we do not have to go through this traumatic experience and this absurdity, especially after what happened last night. It must have placed an immense strain on you personally, Mr. Speaker. It could be avoided if a simple method were evolved to allow the maximum discussion of all proposed legislation, bearing in mind always, of course, that there must come a time when discussion ceases and decisions are made.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)

I do not agree with all that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) said, but perhaps I might take up his generous remarks about the position of the minority parties.

The Scottish National Party objects to this guillotine on very simple grounds of principle. They concern the rights of a minority party. However, it is not in the minority in Scotland. We polled in excess of 200,000 votes more than the Conservatives. I do not see a Member of the Scottish Conservative Party in the House. I do not think that there has been any one of them present in this debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, there has."] I apologise if that is the case.

We are in a minority in this House, although we are not a minority in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) spoke about the rights of minorities. The rights of minorities are being eroded. The Scottish National Party was denied a place on the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. It has now been denied a place on the Standing Committee considering the Industry Bill. Our only chance to make our views known is during the Report stage on the Floor of the House. If we are denied a fair hearing, the people of Scotland, especially after the disgraceful scenes in the House on both the Labour and the Conservative benches, will join us in saying that from Scotland's point of view this House has had its day. To deny the Scottish National Party the chance to speak for Scotland, as is being done, is effectively to gag the voice of a nation.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Alf Bates (Bebington and Ellesmere Port)

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) began his speech by saying that he was about to participate in a show of humbug. How right he was.

None of us is in principle against the idea of a guillotine motion. Certainly the Tory Party is not against the idea in principle. It was in favour of it for the Housing Finance Bill, which simply attacked council tenants, and it was in favour of it for the Industrial Relations Bill, which simply attacked trade unionists. However, it is against the idea of a guillotine motion on the capital transfer tax because that is an attack on capital.

What is so particular about this Bill that it should not be guillotined? The Opposition say that they want a lot of time to discuss the many amendments that have been put down. Why did they not simply get on and do that? We have had two days in which they could have been doing that. It is well known that the two Front Benches, through the usual channels, agreed that there should be five days on Report. That is a little longer than some hon. Members might have wished, but in the end that was agreed. So why did not the Opposition simply get on with the debate in what was an agreed fashion?

The Tory Front Bench has either lost control or found a new kind of control. Since the start of the Report stage yesterday, we have spent over three and a half hours debating a motion on the order in which we should take the clauses. That was nothing to do with capital transfer tax. The fact is that the Opposition have started filibustering. There was no vote on that motion. The Opposition simply wanted to talk for three and a half hours. We spent another two hours on a motion to delete Clause 1, which relates to value added tax. That was nothing to do with capital transfer tax. The Tories wanted to take up a further two hours to try to extend the debate. There was no vote on that motion. We then had a further debate on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

The matters to which I have referred had nothing to do with any desire to debate in detail the many amendments which have been put down. If the Opposition had been interested in doing that, they would have got on with it from the word "Go" yesterday. They have not done so. They are interested only in preventing the Bill reaching the statute book. That was made clear to anybody who heard the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) on radio earlier today. The Opposition do not want this tax on the statute book, and they are prepared to use any means to prevent it.

The only course for the Government now is to introduce this timetable motion. If agreement between the two Front Benches has broken down because of the intransigence of the Opposition, that is all that the Government can do.

The Tories do not like this measure. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made that clear in his great praise of estate duty. He said that estate duty had been a good tax simply because it had been avoidable.

The hon. Gentleman, who contributed so well to the various stages of filibustering in Committee, introduced us to some exciting new creatures, Durham Man and Plumstead Man, but the creature we all enjoyed most was Tewkesbury Man, a gentleman who is the proud possessor of £500,000 worth of assets but is forced to get up at 7 o'clock in the morning, work in threadbare clothes, and is unable to afford holidays. Poor Tewkesbury Man is not satisfied with being passed on £75,000 without tax. He wishes to receive from the start of his life what most people have to earn during their lives.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)

I entirely agree with most of my hon. Friend's sentiments, but I feel that he is going slightly astray with his suggestion that an ordinary person who lives in a terraced house or on a Welsh mountainside could earn in a lifetime the kind of money that some of these people inherit. That is the fiction that the Tory Party tries to create. I felt that my hon. Friend was well on the mark when he spoke about the division within the Opposition. Is not the reason that the Tory Front Bench lost control that when any genuine redistribution is involved the animal teeth and claws of Tory back benchers come to the fore? Is not that what we have seen in this House?

Mr. Bates

I think that my hon. Friend puts it in much better words than I could use. I was thinking not of terraced houses in Wales but more of car workers living on council estates in Ellesmere Port. None of those supposedly overpaid people would ever manage to get anywhere near the wealth that hon. Gentlemen opposite complain they will be unable to pass on without tax. That is why the Bill is being delayed.

Whenever I hear about Tewkesbury man, the poor individual who is unable properly to pass on his £500,000 without tax or anybody complaining about the difficulties of his wealth, I think that he is either a fool or a brigand. I think that Tewkesbury man is both.

I suggest that, because the Government's proposals have come through the Committee stage without any serious alteration, the Tories have now decided that the only weapon available to them to prevent them is a filibuster on the Floor of the House. That is why the Government have introduced the motion.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone)

Any guillotine debate tends to have the character of a journey down memory lane. However, I should never have thought to hear the nostalgic reminiscences of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about drinking champagne in Committee Room 7, because when the hon. Gentleman rises one associates him rather with the sound of tumbrels than with the tinkling of champagne glasses. For those of us on the Opposition benches who find a certain charm and delight in the continuity of tradition, it is pleasing that the spiritual heirs of Nye Bevan, whose favourite champagne was Bollinger, should keep this patrician tradition so alive.

I have some degree of sympathy with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that, on the whole, they do not like timetable motions. There has been a tendency for Governments of both parties in recent years to use guillotines rather too quickly. Timetable motions have to be introduced because whichever party occupies the Treasury Bench cannot resist the itch to legislate. Conservative Governments usually come in determined to do less and end up by doing more. Socialist Governments come in determined to do a great deal efficiently and end up by doing a great deal more inefficiently.

The reason for this timetable motion owes a lot not to the date by which the Finance Bill has to become an Act but to the heavy legislative programme on which the Government have embarked. The passage of this Bill would have been just a shade easier if the Leader of the House had been just a shade more flexible. Those who know him personally outside this Chamber will know that he is not rude, discourteous or stubborn; but when he gets to that Dispatch Box some sea change takes place and he becomes all these things. He has a highly developed talent to offend. I would say of him, as was said of Parnell, that he has all the qualities of a poker except its warmth.

Turning to the rôle of the Treasury Ministers in this, there is no doubt that the procedure we adopt for the passage of tax legislation in our Finance Bills is entirely unsatisfactory. The case has been made many times by the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). Some of us can remember him, when he was on the back benches in 1968 and 1969, lecturing his own Government on the need to adopt much better methods of introducing complicated taxation. We all said "Hear, hear" many times in the 1968–69 Finance Bills. We tried to show the way when we were in Government by having Green Papers which were discussed by Select Committees. I well recall that being done on tax credits and the imputation system of company taxation. He is not hostile to that scheme because the Government have set up a Select Committee on the wealth tax. This is the proper way to legislate.

The wrong way to legislate on complicated taxation, irrespective of the mandate that any Government have, is to introduce an ill-thought-out, complicated tax measure and then be determined to get it through by a specific date. The capital transfer tax should, in my view, have been subjected to a searching examination by a Select Committee and then brought forward. My right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor provided the means whereby the Government could have done this, by putting the capital transfer clauses into cold storage even for six months—though he was asking for one year—so that they could be subjected to proper examination. This was not done, and I agree with my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the need to examine that process of tax legislation.

I believe that we shall have to move towards a system whereby Finance Bills will deal mainly with changes in tax rates, but changes of fundamental taxation will need separate Bills, previously examined by Select Committees which would not have upon them the enormous pressure of having to effect the introduction of the Bills by a specific day as otherwise the taxing provisions of the Act would not apply. I hope, therefore, that we shall be able to avoid in future what has happened during the course of this Finance Bill.

The right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton has been virtually rewriting the Bill upstairs. It is only because he is an experienced accountant, able to think quickly on his feet, that he has been able to give coherence to what he has said. Important parts of the Bill are now being rewritten on Report. Because, on the whole, we do not have such experts in the House, very few hon. Members can understand the details of such Bills; and many commentators outside, this week and next, will be denied a real chance to comment on these complicated provisions. This brings our whole legislative process in this House into ridicule and contempt. How can this be the best way of introducing complicated tax measures?

I end very much as I started by regretting the need for guillotine motions in general; but the particular character of this guillotine motion makes it unique. Since the war only one Finance Bill, that in 1968, has been guillotined. I believe that that was a very regrettable precedent because the unique power that we have—some hon. Members have called it a precious right, though it is more than that—is the reason why this Chamber has over the centuries acquired certain powers. It is because we have the right to deny the executive of the day, whether Tory, Liberal or Conservative, Supply before there has been adequate debate or redress of grievance. If we surrender that right we are surrendering one of the very reasons that have brought us into being as a legislative House. For these reasons I very much oppose this guillotine measure.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

I do not wish to reply in detail to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but he referred towards the end of his speech to "Tory, Liberal or Conservative". I hope that amongst that group of three he was not referring to my right hon. and hon. Friends sitting on the Front Bench. If he was, I am sure they will correct that impression. The hon. Gentleman referred in some detail to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and made certain remarks about his virtues outside the House. As a colleague of my right hon. Friend I would say that within this Chamber we know him as a kind-hearted, warm and considerate man, whose great virtue is to give us all methods of expediting business through the House and for that, on this occasion, we are indebted to him.

Today I had a deputation from a group of hosiery manufacturers in Leicester. They came to the House to discuss certain aspects of the capital transfer tax. I would be maligning their case if I were to say other than that they disagreed with the tax in a number of ways, and I shall be conveying their points to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But before they left the House today they made the point that it is not timetable arrangements or guillotine arrangements that bring this House into disrepute but the behaviour of right hon. and hon. Members both in this Chamber and upstairs which brings this House into disrepute.

The deputation told me that they thought it somewhat odd that at this time grown men and women should sit upstairs in Committee all night and in some cases all day—I forgot the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who left at 12 o'clock each night, presumably to get his beauty sleep—

Mr. Pardoe

The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Marshall

Nevertheless, the gentlemen from Leicester made the point that it is behaviour of that kind that tends to bring this Chamber into disrepute. That was reinforced by the abysmal behaviour of certain hon. and right hon. Members last night. I telephoned my wife earlier this afternoon and she gave a further example to me. I was absent from the Chamber at the time, meeting constituents from Leicester, but my wife recited to me an example of what had been broadcast—no doubt by the BBC—of an hon. Member opposite actually striking one of my hon. or right hon. Friends. That may not be true, but none the less it has been reported on a national television broadcasting network. If that is true—and, as I have said, I was not in the House when the incident is said to have occurred—nothing could do more to bring this House into disrepute.

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

As one who was present at the time of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers, may I ask him whether he is aware that the hon. Gentleman opposite who reportedly committed this offence is one of the leading upholders of the doctrine of the preservation of law and order in this country—and does he agree with me that the display by the Conservative Party today would make Clay Cross Urban District Council proceedings look like a Boy Scouts' jamboree?

Mr. Marshall

I thank my hon. Friend for those pertinent and salient comments. He referred to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). I know the hon. Members. He happens to be my constituency Member. Over the past six months I have been inundated with his views on law and order. But I shall come back to that matter—

Mr. Powell

On a point of order. Is it in order for a reference to be made during a debate to an alleged assault on or by an hon. Member?

Mr. Speaker

The position is that if such a thing had happened one would expect the matter to be raised as a matter of privilege. No such matter has been raised as a matter of privilege. I do not know that I can rule what the hon. Member has said as out of order, but I do not think that it is a very profitable line to pursue.

Mr. Marshall

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was simply reporting a conversation that I had had with my wife.

Getting back to my main argument, hon. Members opposite are deliberately trying to prevent the Government from introducing legislation for which the electorate twice gave them a mandate last year. The hon. Member for Blaby has made a statement to the local newspaper in Leicester that he and his hon. Friends would do all in their power, by delaying tactics, to prevent the implement-p tation of the new tax rates by 14th March. Their policy is to filibuster, and it is a deliberate policy.

My right hon. Friends have to take that attitude into account, and by moving this motion they have done so. I thank them for doing so. This will not only expedite business; it will also prevent my having so many sleepless nights over the next two weeks.

Coming back to the antics of the so-called Opposition, I realise that there are deep feelings on the capital transfer tax but, having searched my soul over the last few weeks and days, I still find their antics churlish. I cannot forget the Industrial Relations Act, the Housing Finance Act, or the European Communities Act, on all three of which the debates were guillotined. The Housing Finance Act was a deliberate attack upon council tenants, the Industrial Relations Act was a deliberate attack on the trade unions, and the European Communities Act took away constitutional responsibility from this House. Nevertheless, all three were guillotined.

I have campaigned over the past 12 months, almost to the day, for the fairer distribution of wealth as well as income. I believe that the capital transfer tax, which we shall be debating later in the week—

Mr. Sedgemore

But not for long.

Mr. Marshall

—will help to bring about a fairer distribution of wealth. When that legislation reaches the statute book this Government will have carried out another pledge, and in a small but significant way I may have helped. When that happens, I shall tell the people of Leicester, "Your Labour Government, ably backed by the Labour Member for Leicester, South, have carried out another pledge."

Mr. Tomlinson

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must tell the House that I want to call another speaker before right hon. Gentlemen from the Front Benches. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give way.

Mr. Marshall

I appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Speaker. I conclude my case.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)

I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will forgive me if I do not follow him into discussing his conversations with his wife but deal instead with three major points which have not yet been mentioned.

First, there is no way in which the House could know it, but I handed in to the Table Office an amendment to the motion to leave out "midnight" and to insert "2 a.m." as the time for the debate to finish each day. That would have allowed hon. Members to discuss a number of major issues raised by their constituents. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly said, when parts of a Finance Bill are taken in Standing Committee many ordinary back benchers cannot express the fears, doubts and concerns of their constituents.

It is unbelievable that the Leader of the House should move the motion without knowing what it involves. That is a pretty rough accusation but it was clear that this was the case when I asked him how many Government amendments were to be debated and he could not say. We know now that there are 167 Government amendments. If this debate ends at 7.30 tonight, 29 hours will be left for the rest of the Report stage. If only Government amendments were discussed, each one could be discussed for a little under 600 seconds.

Yet these are new amendments which should have the scrutiny of a Committee stage. The Government say that they are intended to meet the requirements of the Opposition, but we need to study them to see whether they are in line with the pledges given by Treasury Ministers. It must be wrong for the Government to use the guillotine to force through what are virtually 167 new pieces of legislation. The time allotment I described would operate only if there were no debate at all on the other 200 or 250 amendments.

This situation is entirely different from many other guillotine motions—

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

No.

Mr. Emery

These are major financial matters, Certainly the capital transfer tax will affect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people. It will affect mainly small businesses, which are unlikely to be able to sustain their operations when it comes in. It has been estimated that it will affect 6 million jobs. It must be wrong to push through such a tax without adequate debate.

The motion will allow, almost ensure, that when the Bill is passed this part of the tax law will be ill-prepared, ill-thought-out, ill-advised and in many ways unjust. That the House should be forced to do that by a guillotine motion is entirely wrong.

7.10 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe (Surrey, East)

Many aspects of the debate have been familiar to hon. Members in all parts of the House, but underlying the familiar elements there has been a developing strand of important argument about the way in which our parliamentary procedures can be and should be used, and are used, as the best means of resolving differences of opinion within our society in a way that seeks to reflect the will of the majority, so far as that can be identified, without overriding the interests of the minority, and that does no harm to the common understanding, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put it, upon which all depends.

The success or failure we have in achieving that depends to some extent upon the usual channels, so affectionately and lightheartedly described by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—sometimes and to some extent. It depends also on the extent to which we have been wise or unwise in making the changes referred to by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Speaking for myself, I thought that there was a great deal in the point he was making.

One of the pressures that is now placing these procedures under strain is one that is at the heart of the faith of the Labour Party, which is referred to, interestingly enough, in a book, to which I referred yesterday, on the procedure of the House, published in 1908 by Josef Redlich. On page 197, one of the pressures is identified as a craving for social or economic equality. The author said that that could threaten the majority principle, a fundamental convention upon which all parliamentary government is built and that that must needs begin to lose its moral force. At the same time"— this point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan)— and to the same degree, the principle of protection for the minority begins to suffer from decay. There is a total collapse of the system of ideas of representative government. Those are the kind of pressures which Governments ought to consider when they bring legislation of any kind, and certainly of this kind, before the House. The extent to which we strain those conventions depends, first, upon the nature of the legislation—the essential substance and the quality of that legislation, the extent to which it has been properly considered, and, finally, the way in which it is actually handled through the House. In each of these three respects, the Government have placed undue strain upon our system. We are entitled to argue those points in resisting the motion.

First, concerning the quality of the legislation itself, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) suggested that this legislation was to the great economic advantage of the nation. One asks, how so? No evidence has been advanced in any of the debates to suggest that it is economically advantageous to the nation. The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) suggested that it was beneficial because of the harm that it might do to Tewkesbury Man. But why seek to do that harm? What harm is done by him if he is one of the many people running a business, small or large, for the benefit of the nation? The truth is that the capital transfer tax is totally destructive, it threatens bankruptcy, and it is disastrous for thousands of small firms, farms, and businesses throughout the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham has said, it is casting the shadow of insecurity and unemployment over millions of employees in these businesses, the 6 million people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) referred.

The capital transfer tax is threatening also—this may surprise Labour Members—to bring about a sharp reduction in choice and the quality of life for the consumers of this country. As more and more firms pass into the control of giant public companies, or, still worse, of the State, so the quality of life is diminished. It is in no sense of jest that I refer to the comments made by the organisation concerned with the quality of British beer. It has been pointing out, quite rightly, that many small breweries, giving jobs to many people, are threatened by this tax.

Mr. Tomlinson

Tell us about the Carlisle brewery.

Sir G. Howe

I hold no brief for that brewery, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think. I want to concentrate on this tax and the damage it is doing to the quality of life in this respect.

Finally, this tax also threatens to do serious damage to voluntary organisations—that is beyond charities, and not just the political parties which, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has pointed out, may be saved in the nick of time—and to the non-charitable public organisations which contribute a great deal to the quality of our life and which ought to be the subject of a Government amendment which has not yet been tabled. I want to quote from a document that has been submitted to many of us by the Child Poverty Action Group, which says that it is therefore crucial that the Government should encourage a thriving voluntary sector which is free to criticise official action as well as to feed back to authority grassroots opinion on the effects Government measures are having on ordinary people…. From reading the Committee stage of the Finance Bill"— this is the important point— it would appear that most of your colleagues"— the letter is addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer— were unaware of the effects the proposed capital transfer tax—which CPAG supports in principle—will have on the voluntary sector. That is another illustration of the way in which this is a thoroughly destructive, damaging tax.

Woodlands, building employers, small employers, small firms, a range of jobs, and voluntary institutions—all these things will be severely damaged. Hon. Members should not smile at that argument, which is being put powerfully by many people inside and outside the House.

That is the first important reason for seeking to prevent the measure reaching.

the statute book. The measure is misconceived. It is, quite simply, a bad tax. It has been prepared and considered and is being enacted, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) pointed out, with a combination of folly, arrogance and incompetence that is, mercifully, without precedent in the proceedings of this House. Not a voice has been raised in answer to the criticisms advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about the way in which this legislation has been prepared. The Leader of the House said, as though this were an answer to all the questions, "We have a mandate to bring this in". But there is no legitimate mandate for the introduction of a measure so badly mishandled as this one.

It has never been our purpose, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out, to prevent the collection of existing taxes, the rates of which are altered by the Bill. Our objective has been—it is a perfectly justifiable objective—to persuade the Government, even now, to unstitch Part III, to proceed by all means with the rest by the magic date of Friday week, and to consider again the way in which they have mishandled the preparation of this tax.

I accept that there may be some point in the criticism of the right hon. Member for Down, South, suggesting that our attempt to secure that detachment need not have been the only way of handling this matter. But the fact is—I am sure that the right hon. Member would agree—that it is this incompetence in the preparation of this measure which has driven the Opposition and, therefore, this House to press as hard as we legitimately can for the removal, detachment and reconsideration of Part III. It is that which has driven the Government, through their own original mistakes, to introduce this unjustifiable timetable motion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil referred to the criticisms advanced by Mr. Patrick Hutber in the Sunday Telegraph. He is not such an undistinguished advocate, because in the same article to which reference has been made he draws attention to the fact that over 10 years ago he was a great deal more Socialist and unwise than he is today. He is learning wisdom from the past which far exceeds that of hon. Members opposite.

This measure has been criticised also by The Times and the Financial Times. Most important of all is the comment in The Guardian today, which says quite plainly: For the House of Commons to discuss even the most important amendments thoroughly in the five days allotted under the Report stage will be extremely difficult…. Beyond doubt, the tax has been introduced in too much of a hurry and without sufficient public discussion…. It is in the Government's own interest, as well as the taxpayer's, to see that brand new taxes are more thoroughly discussed. That is the central part of the indictment that we lay against the Government.

I next turn to the way in which this measure has been handled. Even without a timetable motion its history will stand as a monument to the lunatic and fruitless impatience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two preachers, the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary. They were called upon, with fumbling conceit, to carry out his dirty work. The proper way of handling this measure was foreshadowed by the Chancellor in his Budget speech of 26th March 1974. In discussing the wealth tax he said: I believe that it should be introduced only after a thorough public discussion about the precise form it should take, the rate at which it is levied, and its relationship with other forms of taxation."—[Official Report, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 312–13.] Would that he had applied those same wise words to the way in which he introduced this monstrous capital transfer tax. That is the second formidable criticism that we advance of the way that this measure has been handled.

Our third criticism is that the capital transfer tax is not just an evil and envious tax but that it has been prepared with outstanding incompetence. It is now being presented to Parliament in a totalitarian fashion. The Leader of the House suggested that we were seeking to prolong the debate instead of concentrating on the merits of the argument. That is certainly not so. The debate on this measure prolongs itself. We were ready yesterday to debate the matter for very much longer than was allowed. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has tabled an amendment seeking to allow us that opportunity now. It was the Leader of the House who, without precedent, intervened at an astonishingly early hour last night to curtail our discussion. The truth is that this legislation is being forced through by what will be regarded as jackboot tactics.

The Chancellor, in his Budget Statement, in introducing this tax—perhaps he can scarcely remember what he said on that occasion—said: I can assure them that, while I am determined to ensure that the new taxes will be effective instruments for redistributing wealth as a means to greater justice and equality in our society, I am concerned that they should operate fairly on those affected and I will listen to any reasonable representations which will help to secure this end."[Official Report, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 314.] What hollow words those sound now. The substance of this legislation has been laid upon the Order Paper, but even now it is not complete. Only in the past two or three days have we learned that the Government, to use the Chancellor's words, are prepared to listen to any reasonable representations …

Mr. Russell Kerr

We have not heard any.

Sir G. Howe

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Russell Kerr) says that he has not heard any reasonable representations. That is the point. The Government have given no opportunity for them to be heard.

One example which the Government have acknowledged to be important in that they have introduced an amendment, is the forestry industry. All hon. Members received yesterday a copy of the telegram that was sent on Sunday 2nd March to the Chancellor which read: The Forestry Committee of Great Britain have just seen the Government amendment to the Finance Bill. We regret the lack of consultation and the unnecessary haste …. This will have a disastrous and decisive effect on planting programmes and employment. It will make forestry uneconomic. Posterity will suffer. How can the Chancellor sit in his place with any degree of complacency upon his face when we contrast that absurd brushing aside of any attempt to allow consultation with what he said so blandly when he introduced his Budget Statement? That sort of thing makes nonsense of the par-p liamentary process. The whole story makes clear the commitment of the Labour Party to conduct a continuing onslaught on independent resources and an independent means of existence in this country. It has a commitment to conduct a continuing onslaught on the existence of private property. It is ruthless in its planned pursuit of equality. It cares not what damage it does to the freedoms and conventions which have held this nation together.

I close by urging Labour Members to reflect on the following proposition, to which they should harken with care. I quote: The pursuit of equality has developed in an unprecedented manner and this fact has become one of the most important obstacles to intensive economic development and higher living standards. The negative aspects of equality are that lazy people, passive individuals and irresponsible employees profit at the expense of dedicated and diligent employees, unskilled workers profit at the expense of skilled ones, and those who are backward from the point of view of technology profit at the expense of those with initiative and talent.

Mr. Russell Kerr

That sounds like the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Sir G. Howe

The hon. Gentleman says that it sounds like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I wish that Labour Members had listened to it more closely. It does not come from any Conservative platform or from any Conservative programme, but from the action programme adopted by the Czechoslovak Communist Party in April 1968 when, under the leadership of Dubcek, it was seeking to escape from the extremes of egalitarianism to which Marxist doctrines had led it.

It is because of our conviction that the Government are taking us down the same disastrous road that we are committed to oppose this tax with all the energy at our command.

Mr. Speaker

I have had a request from the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to allow a manuscript amendment to leave out paragraph 3. The motion must be put at 7.41 p.m. I am afraid that it does not rest in my hands whether the hon. Member will have time to move his amendment, but I will select it and it can be moved if there is time.

7.27 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett)

First, I say to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I will not be too disturbed that we have not won any laurels from him. We prefer the laurels of our hon. Friends and, if I may say so, their champagne.

We have had a number of interesting contributions. We had two serious and excellent speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). They and a number of other hon. Members have referred to the fact that a timetable motion has been placed on the Bill. Serious problems arise when a Finance Bill is timetabled, and a number of points have been made about that by my hon. Friends. That a Finance Bill has been guillotined twice under Labour Governments is clear evidence of the kind of opposition we get when we seek to put measures on the statute book which remove tax avoidance schemes. As many of my hon. Friends will recall, a similar occurrence took place in 1968.

As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, no responsible Government can ever rule out the need at times for a timetable motion. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) would be the last person in the world to rule out any such motion.

Questions have been asked about the number of Government amendments and the time that it will take to debate them. There are some 25 major Government amendments. Many of the other amendments are of a consequential nature which will be well understood by Conservative Members. The guillotine motion became inevitable, as hon. Members on both sides will recognise who are being reasonable about the matter, once the Opposition had made clear their intention to stop the capital transfer tax by all measures available to them. That became absolutely clear in Standing Committee. We spent many hours in Standing Committee and in Committee on the Floor of the House debating amendments. Including dinner breaks, we spent 160 hours in debate. Many of those amendments could have been dealt with in a quarter of the time or less if Conservative Members had dealt with them reasonably. There is no doubt that any objective observer could have seen that.

As the right hon. Member for Down, South and others have said, it is an example of our crazy system that an Opposition—and this Opposition in particular—can be so concerned with vying with one another to see who can speak the longest so as to bring about the maximum possible pressure. That is what happened. As an operation it was interesting but not very successful. It was not a very good way of achieving a proper examination of a Finance Bill or any other Bill. Most of the major Government changes were decided well in advance of our debates in Standing Committee. Indeed, I announced that we would move those amendments before we started to debate them. The Opposition were very upset about it.

We eventually finished the Standing Committee proceedings after two days and nights, finishing at 8.30 one morning and 9.30 the following morning. There was no reason for that except that the Opposition decided that it might be a useful ploy to sit two nights on the run before we finish.

Much has been said about how good the Opposition were in Committee, what an excellent Opposition back bench team it was. They needed to be good. After all, there were only 16 of them against my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and myself, so they needed to be reasonably good.

When we came to the Report stage, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East approached it rather differently, because it was clear that he had instructions from his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. She wanted to show just how tough she was in these matters. Unfortunately for her, she did not realise how incompetent her right hon. and learned Friend was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took the right hon. Lady literally and decided to make it quite clear by overplaying his hand, as the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman over-played his hand in a number of different ways. Many of the Opposition amendments, especially the new clauses, could have been tabled days before they were tabled. Many of them were tabled—pages and pages of them simply by photo-stating the Committee stage amendments—late on the Thursday, and many of them after 10 o'clock that night. It was being unreasonable then to expect the workers at the Stationery Office to have the amendments printed for the Friday morning. It was synthetic anger when Tory Members came here on the Friday morning and said that the amendments were not printed.

The Opposition have disgraced themselves during the last few days. In so doing they have been led by that arch villain, the right hon. Member for Yeovil. He has excelled himself in these matters. It is no wonder that I noticed the serious members of the Opposition looking shamefaced and embarrassed last night. As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, the tactics embarrassed the House and did the House great harm.

The whole exercise of the Opposition stems, as they told us quite clearly, from the fact that they do not like the capital transfer tax. So they ran a deliberate campaign to distort and mislead the public.

On whose behalf have the Opposition been pleading so strongly? At the outset of our debates today the right hon. Member for Yeovil said that the tax should be fair. That is right, but I am bound to ask—fair to whom? He could not have meant that it should be fair to the majority of the people, because what we had before certainly was not fair to the majority of the people. The majority of people did not have enough money to pay estate duty, or they did not know how, or did not want, to avoid estate duty. Those better off were the ones who had the major relief from estate duty. Now under the capital transfer tax widows and widowers and those who paid the lowest rates of estate duty will be much better off. It is a tiny minority whom the Opposition are representing in the House.

Much has been made about forestry and woodlands. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that the amendment we have tabled, which was to some extent welcomed in Standing Committee by his hon. Friends who understood these matters, will help all those who are genuine foresters, not those who under estate duty were using woodlands for a massive form of tax avoidance, often on their death beds. We have stopped that by the amendment we have tabled, whilst we are helping genuine foresters.

Another kind of people that Tory Members seek to help are those who had trusts and used them to avoid estate duty to a tremendous extent. Another tiny minority that the Opposition represent in the House—we saw this in Standing Committee when one Tory Member after another spoke in this regard—is the tiny minority who use the Channel Islands to avoid tax on a growing scale. Not one Tory Member spoke about the majority of other taxpayers who were paying estate duty properly.

This is the kind of Opposition we had upstairs and downstairs. The "Shadow Leader of the House", if that is his title, said that not all those affected by the capital transfer tax are plutocrats. That is absolutely true. They are not, they will be the kind of people who will be helped by the capital transfer tax, including the small traders—the really small businessmen—whom Tory Members purport to represent. There will not be very many small shopkeepers in any of our constituencies who will be hurt by the capital transfer tax.

The very reverse will be the case, because on the right hon. Gentleman's own arguments these are the people who could not afford to give away their businesses in their lifetime. They were left with their businesses when they died. Now they will pay capital transfer tax at lower rates. If they leave the business to a widow, there will be no tax. That is how they will be helped. So hon. Members opposite simply do not speak for really small traders and small businessmen.

I should have preferred it if we could have had a serious examination of the Bill, but the Opposition made it absolutely clear that that was not their intention. The right hon. and learned Gentleman foolishly let the cat out of the bag on Monday. He told us that it was their intention by every legitimate means to stop this part of the Bill from going forward. He did not tell us that the Opposition would subject it to serious examination. That was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention.

I hope that the House will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and the right hon. Member for Down, South said. I think that there is a need to look at our procedures and our way of examining Bills. There may be a need to timetable Bills—preferably voluntarily—at the outset. There may be a need for Select Committees to look at Bills.

These things could be done if we had a reasonable Opposition that joined in the examination of our procedures. However, we do not have a reasonable Opposition. We have an Opposition who are thoroughly irresponsible and obstructive. If they had wished, even now they could have had three full days in which to debate the capital transfer tax. They have no wish to do so. This is an appalling Opposition. They do not represent anyone other than a tiny minority in the country. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the motion so as to put this excellent tax on the statute book.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, to leave out paragraph 3.

As your predecessor in the Chair indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is an entirely non-controversial motion. It was never intended that a motion such as this should kill motions under the Ten Minutes Rule. When the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) was Leader of the House, he gave a pledge that in future this matter would be taken care of. I understand that I have the assent of both Front Benches and of many hon. Members on both sides, because the Bill with which I am concerned is about mentally retarded persons.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. The Chair has been informed that the Division bells are not ringing at least in part of the Palace of Westminster. In the circumstances, I shall put the Question again.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 287.

Division No. 120.]	AYES	[7.43 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Campbell, Ian	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Allaun, Frank	Canavan, Dennis	Dempsey, James
Anderson, Donald	Cant, R. B.	Doig, Peter
Archer, Peter	Carmichael, Neil	Dormand, J. D.
Armstrong, Ernest	Carter, Ray	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Ashley, Jack	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Duffy, A. E. P.
Ashton, Joe	Cartwright, John	Dunn, James A.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Dunnett, Jack
Atkinson, Norman	Clemitson, Ivor	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Eadie, Alex
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Cohen, Stanley	Edelman, Maurice
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel	Coleman, Donald	Edge, Geoff
Bates, Alf	Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Bean, R. E.	Concannon, J. D.	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Conlan, Bernard	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	English, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney	Corbett, Robin	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Bishop, E. S.	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Evans, John (Newton)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Boardman, H.	Cronin, John	Faulds, Andrew
Booth, Albert	Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Cryer, Bob	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Flannery, Martin
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Cunningham, Dr J. (Witeh)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Bradley, Tom	Dalyell, Tam	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Davidson, Arthur	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Ford, Ben
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Forrester, John
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Buchan, Norman	Deakins, Eric	Freeson, Reginald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Delargy, Hugh	George, Bruce
Gilbert Dr John	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Rose, Paul B.
Ginsburg, David	McCartney, Hugh	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Golding, John	McElhone, Frank	Rowlands, Ted
Gould, Bryan	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Ryman, John
Gourlay, Harry	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Sandelson, Neville
Graham, Ted	Mackenzie, Gregor	Sedgemore, Brian
Grant, John (Islington C)	Mackintosh, John P.	Selby, Harry
Grocott, Bruce	Maclennan, Robert	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	McNamara, Kevin	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hamling, William	Madden, Max	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Hardy, Peter	Magee, Bryan	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Harper, Joseph	Mahon, Simon	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Marks, Kenneth	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Marquand, David	Sillars, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Silverman, Julius
Hatton, Frank	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Skinner, Dennis
Hayman, Mrs Helene	Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Small, William
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Maynard, Miss Joan	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Heffer, Eric S	Meacher, Michael	Snape, Peter
Hooley, Frank	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Spearing, Nigel
Horam, John	Mikardo, Ian	Spriggs, Leslie
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Millan, Bruce	Stallard, A. W.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Stott, Roger
Huckfield, Les	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Molloy, William	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Moonman, Eric	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Swain, Thomas
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hunter, Adam	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Moyle, Roland	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Jackson Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Janner, Greville	Newens, Stanley	Tierney, Sydney
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Noble, Mike	Tinn, James
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Oakes, Gordon	Tomlinson, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Ogden, Eric	Torney, Tom
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	O'Halloran, Michael	Urwin, T. W.
John Brynmor	O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Orbach, Maurice	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Ovenden, John	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Owen, Dr David	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Padley, Walter	Ward, Michael
Judd, Frank	Palmer, Arthur	Watkins, David
Kaufman, Gerald	Park, George	Watkinson, John
Kelley Richard	Parker, John	Weitzman, David
Kerr, Russell	Parry, Robert	Wellbeloved, James
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Perry, Ernest	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Kinnock, Neil	Phipps, Dr Colin	White, James (Pollok)
Lambie, David	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Whitehead, Phillip
Lamborn, Harry	Prescott, John	Whitlock, William
Lamond, James	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Price, William (Rugby)	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Leadbitter, Ted	Radice, Giles	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Lee, John	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Williams, W. T. (Warringon)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Richardson, Miss Jo	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Lipton, Marcus	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Litterick, Tom	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Woodall, Alec
Lomas, Kenneth	Roderick, Caerwyn	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Loyden, Eddie	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Luard, Evan	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Rooker, J. W.	Mr. Laurie Pavitt and
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Roper, John	Mr. David Stoddart.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Biggs-Davison, John	Burden, F. A.
Aitken, Jonathan	Blaker, Peter	Carlisle, Mark
Alison, Michael	Boscawen, Hon Robert	Carr, Rt Hon Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Carson, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Awdry, Daniel	Bradford, Rev Robert	Channon, Paul
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Braine, Sir Bernard	Churchill, W. S.
Baker, Kenneth	Brittan, Leon	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Banks, Robert	Brotherton, Michael	Clark, William (Croydon S)
Beith, A. J.	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bell, Ronald	Bryan, Sir Paul	Clegg, Walter
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Cockcroft, John
Benyon, W.	Buck, Antony	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Budgen, Nick	Cope, John
Biffen, John	Bulmer, Esmond	Cormack, Patrick

Corrie, John	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Costain, A. P.	Jones Arthur (Daventry)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Jopling, Michael	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Crawford, Douglas	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Reid, George
Critchley, Julian	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Crouch, David	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Crowder, F. P.	Kershaw, Anthony	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Kilfedder, James	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Kimball, Marcus	Ridsdale, Julian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Rifkind, Malcolm
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Dunlop, John	Knight, Mrs Jill	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Durant, Tony	Lamont, Norman	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lane, David	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Elliott, Sir William	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Emery, Peter	Lawrence, Ivan	Royle, Sir Anthony
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Lawson, Nigel	Sainsbury, Tim
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Scott, Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lloyd, Ian	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fairgrieve, Russell	Loveridge, John	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Farr, John	Luce, Richard	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fell, Anthony	MacCormick, Iain	Shepherd, Colin
Finsberg Geoffrey	McCrindle, Robert	Shersby, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel	McCusker, H.	Silvester, Fred
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Macfarlane, Neil	Sims, Roger
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	MacGregor, John	Sinclair, Sir George
Fookes, Miss Janet	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fowler Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Fox, Marcus	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Madel, David	Speed, Keith
Freud, Clement	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Spence, John
Fry, Peter	Marten, Neil	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Mates, Michael	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Mather, Carol	Sproat, Iain
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Maude, Angus	Stainton, Keith
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Stanbrook, Ivor
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Mawby, Ray	Stanley, John
Glyn, Dr Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Goodhart, Philip	Mayhew, Patrick	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Goodhew, Victor	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Goodlad, Alastair	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Gorst, John	Mills, Peter	Stokes, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Miscampbell, Norman	Stradling Thomas, J.
Gower Sir Raymond (Barry)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Moate, Roger	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Gray, Hamish	Molyneaux, James	Tebbit, Norman
Grieve, Percy	Monro, Hector	Temple-Morris, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon	Montgomery, Fergus	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Grist, Ian	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Grylls, Michael	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Thompson, George
Hall, Sir John	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Trotter, Neville
Hampson, Dr Keith	Mudd, David	Tugendhat, Christopher
Hannam, John	Neave, Airey	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Nelson, Anthony	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Neubert, Michael	Viggers, Peter
Hastings, Stephen	Newton, Tony	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Havers, Sir Michael	Normanton, Tom	Wakeham, John
Hawkins, Paul	Nott, John	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Hayhoe Barney	Onslow, Cranley	Walters, Dennis
Henderson Douglas	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Warren, Kenneth
Heseltine, Michael	Osborn, John	Watt, Hamish
Hicks, Robert	Page, John (Harrow West)	Weatherill, Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Wells, John
Holland, Philip	Paisley, Rev Ian	Welsh, Andrew
Hooson, Emlyn	Pardoe, John	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Hordern, Peter	Parkinson, Cecil	Wiggin, Jerry
Howe Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Pattie, Geoffrey	Wigley, Dafydd
Howell, David (Guildford)	Penhaligon, David	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Percival, Ian	Winterton, Nicholas
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Hurd, Douglas	Pink, R. Bonner	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Younger, Hon George
James, David	Prior, Rt Hon James
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jessel, Toby	Raison, Timothy	Mr. Adam Butler and
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Rathbone, Tim	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.
Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:—

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining Proceedings on Consideration and the Proceedings on Third Reading

Proceedings	Time for conclusion or interruption
New Clauses not relating to capital transfer tax or estate duty, and Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18 and 50 to 56 and to Schedules 1 to 3 and 12.	To be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the first allotted day.
New Clauses relating to capital transfer tax or estate duty.	To be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.
Amendments relating to Clauses 19 to 49, new Schedules.	(a) To be interrupted at midnight on the third allotted day;
Amendments relating to Schedules 4 to 11, and Third Reading.	(b) to be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the fourth allotted day.

(2) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

(3) The Third Reading of the Bill may be taken immediately after the Consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the stages of a Finance Bill.

Dilatory motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Private Business

3. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith proceed to put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say— (a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill); (b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the

of the Bill shall be completd in four allotted days and (subject to paragraph 4(2) of this Order) shall be brought to a conclusion or interrupted, as the case may be, at the times shown in the following Table:—

name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government; (c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under paragraph 1(1) of this Order.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion or interruption of any Proceedings which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion at a stated time on that day shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion under Standing Order No. 9.

(4) If a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over to Seven o'clock on an allotted day, the bringing to a conclusion or interruption, as the case may be, of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion or interrupted on that day at any hour falling after the beginning of the Proceedings on that Motion shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

5.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and the last foregoing paragraph shall apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on the Bill on an allotted day.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

6. Nothing in this Order shall—

1. (a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or
2. (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Interpretation

7. In this Order— allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day; the Bill' means the Finance Bill.