HC Deb 06 May 1975 vol 891 cc1353-89

Motion made, and Question proposed. >That the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee: That every such Sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report to the Committee from time to time: That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken by and Memoranda laid before such Sub-committees: That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

10.1 p.m.

Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for jumping up too soon a moment ago but it is better to be safe than sorry afterwards through having missed one's opportunity.

I think that we are entitled to some kind of explanation from the Government about this motion. Prima facie, without great knowledge of the subject, I should have thought that this was an unnecessary motion. I have sat on various kinds of Committees of this House, and one knows that there are various Committees which have sub-committees without any more ado. When the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax was appointed, I should have thought that the general rules, if there be such—and I stand open to correction—about such sub-committees would have been embodied in the motion which we then passed. But however that may be, suggest that we are entitled to an explanation why we should have subcommittees to consider this matter of the wealth tax at all.

Various matters arise if and when it is decided that there should be such subcommittees. First, there is the membership of the sub-committees. Are we to assume that they will consist solely of the members of the main Committee on a wealth tax? Or are the sub-committees, or, alternatively, the main Committee, to have power to co-opt other members who are not on the main Committee? Perhaps that is one of the objects of the exercise of having sub-committees, but I think we should be told.

Whether or not that be so, we are seeing an enormous proliferation of Committees and an enormous amount of time being taken up outside this Chamber by the setting up of Committees of all kinds. One cannot complain about Select Committees. They have a job to do, but Standing Committees are taking up an inordinate amount of time because of the tremendous weight of legislation.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Which is unnecessary.

Sir D. Renton

I am not expressing an opinion whether such legislation is necessary. I am merely asking the House to consider whether it is right that we should go on and on loading ourselves with a manpower difficulty. There is a manpower problem—[HoN. MEMBERS: "There are many Members."'] I do not understand the purpose of the observation made from a sedentary position. All I am trying to do is to make a simple point. It is not a new one, but it is sometimes lost sight of.

There are no doubt 630 Members, but with delegations abroad, various international commitments which it is proper for us to assume, numerous commitments with regard to legislation and Select Committees which are doing valuable work, we should pause to consider whenever a new proposal appears on the Order Paper suggesting that there should be a new Committee or new sub-committees.

One wonders why this well-manned Committee on a Wealth Tax is incapable of carrying on with the task assigned to it by this House at the behest of the Government to consider the subject within the terms of reference given to it. Why should it be necessary for this work to be divided into two? I should have thought that it was the sort of work which needed to be looked at as one subject, and not as two divisions of the same subject.

We are also entitled to know whether, when each sub-committee reports, there will be any attempt to collate these two reports within and by the main Committee or whether they are to be two unrelated and disconnected reports. If so, that would defeat the object of the original exercise.

The Government may be in too much of a hurry. If so, that would be a reason for opposing the motion. If they have set themselves a deadline for this destructive piece of legislation and for the Select Committee which is to make recommendations with regard to it, then no doubt from the Government's point of view it is helpful to split up the work so that it can be done in two parallel streams instead of one part of the work following the other and then being properly collated in the main Committee. But if this is intended merely to overcome a difficulty which the Government have created for themselves in the time factor, the House should look upon the proposal with disfavour.

I hope that I have made a sufficient case for requiring an explanation from the Government. There should be an explanation for this unusual proceeding, and I hope that it will be satisfactory.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I warmly support the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who has put the matter cogently and clearly. I share his concern.

I do not rise necessarily to oppose the motion and certainly I do not approach the matter in any spirit of opposition. I have no wish to carp but only to express on behalf of some of my colleagues the genuine anxiety which has been clearly expressed to me. I have been struck by the number of colleagues who have asked what reason there can be for the motion. I agree especially with my right hon. and learned Friend that we are entitled to an explanation of the Government's motives and intent I have also been struck by the number of colleagues who have emphasised to me the immense complexity of the matter with which this Select Committee is dealing.

I confess to a good deal of cynicism about this motion. I have friends outside the House who take the view that all Governments are disreputable but some much more than others. I do not take quite that extreme view, but after some years in the House I feel that there is too much which goes through late at night, on the nod, when it is expected that few will be present. I hope that this is not a proposition which the Government are hoping will slip by unnoticed. One never can be sure what slips through, and it is appropriate to make some inquiry about this matter.

Nor do I oppose the idea of a wealth tax. There are other taxes that I am prepared to oppose. I abominate the income tax, I loathe taxes on savings and I particularly distrust and dislike the selective VAT which the Chancellor has lately introduced. But it is not possible to oppose the wealth tax, because at the moment we simply do not know what is involved.

Certainly, there are, for instance, rumours, that people will be taxed heavily on the ownership of farms or family businesses or on their homes, but these are only rumours which perhaps we should ignore at this stage. But what we cannot ignore are those aspects of the matter about which it is appropriate to ask the Government for assurances. We are entitled to demand that we be satisfied that a proper and thorough investigation is being made and will be made into the possibility of this wealth tax. We are entitled to demand that we be satisfied that the proposals, when they come, and their implications should be most carefully sifted.

It is not merely a matter of selfishness. It seems to me that the whole reputation of the House is at stake in an essay of this sort. Even a cursory reading of the minutes of evidence so far given to the Select Committee, which are available to the public, indicate two things very clearly. The first is that undoubtedly to date the Committee has done a very careful and meticulous job, as one would expect, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), with his great experience. Secondly, any examination of the evidence indicates the mammoth task which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face. They certainly have the sympathy of all hon. Members in what they are attempting to do. That being so, it is essential that the work should not be skimped. As my right hon. and learned Friend properly said, it should not be rushed either. Other inquiries that I have made lead me to understand that the Committee has had in front of it no fewer than 100 different memoranda. I am given to understand that no fewer than 60 bodies have asked the Committee whether they can give evidence. This is a formidable operation. Plainly all of those bodies must be heard, and heard carefully.

It is essential that the processes of democracy be seen to work, and to work properly. Too often I hear as I travel through the country, and in my own constituency, the criticism and complaint, which we may think is unjustified, but which certainly exists, that Parliament is already too remote from the people and too careless of their points of view.

It is also essential that there should be ample time for the House to consider all these matters after the Committee has had proper time to do so. Thereafter there should be adequate time for outside bodies to see what evidence has been given to the Committee, what consideration the Committee has given to the matter, what the views of the House have been, what the view of the Government has been, and so on.

I shall be more particular about some of these matters in an attempt to underline to a greater degree the general statement that I have made about the complexity of the Committee's work. The House will wish to be sure, and so will the public, that the economic consequences of this tax, if we are to have it, have been fully examined. The public will want to see the evidence at length and to see it published. I go further and say that when this is done it will be a valuable addition to the whole catalogue of economic debating material.

Moreover, one will be interested to hear what the academics in the universities think about the macro-economic and micro-economic consequences. As a practical man, and one who is active in business, I should like to know what view Government Departments have taken of the likely consequences of the tax on industry, farming and not least upon our national heritage.

I should like to know what the view of the Civil Service unions is on this proposed new taxation. We have suffered enough in various ways from the imposition of new taxes which have caused great administrative difficulties. It is the job of the House to be informed of the opinions of the civil servants about the work that they have to do. I should like to know what the tax lawyers and the accountants say, as well as the Treasury and the Revenue. I should like to know the views of the TUC, the CBI, The Life Offices' Association, the unquoted companies group, the Stock Exchange and all those who have interests of one sort and another, not least the agriculturists. I should like to know something of the administrative feasibility of the tax and the view that the various legal bodies take of that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is well outside the scope of the motion. We have to consider merely the question of setting up a Committee, how it will operate and what is to be a quorum.

Mr. du Cann

I naturally bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I might say by way of explanation that the proposal we are discussing is the possibility of establishing a number of sub-committees. What I wish to be assured of, and what I am sure that the whole House will wish to be assured of, is that this will mean that the work of the Select Committee will in no way be skimped. I am concerned to illustrate the deep complexity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that Select Committees work in a particular way, and this one will be no different from the many others that have been set up. We are setting up a Select Committee, and a Select Committee is set up according to the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposal before the House is that the existing Select Committee should be empowered to divide itself into sub-committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has reminded you. This might be an adverse, retrograde proposal in dealing with a very complicated measure which the Government have in mind. If we sub-divide an existing Select Committee, it stands to reason that each sub-committee will have far fewer people available. Not every member of the sub-committee will have an opportunity to hear the complicated and extensive evidence being submitted. I hope that you will be indulgent to my right hon. Friend, who I think is putting reasonable and germane points before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the right hon. Member for Taunton keeps within the terms of the motion, of course he is in order. But unless I can be shown that it has never been the practice for a Select Committee to sub-divide itself in to subcommittees, the matter that has been raised does not properly arise. It is obvious that every member of the Select Committee will not serve on each subcommittee, but the written and oral evidence will be available to each member when the parent Select Committee meets to consider recommendations or to report from time to lime.

Mr. du Cann

I have no wish to try your patience or to put you to any embarrassment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not have raised the matter or spoken in such detail if I had not been aware of the grave anxieties which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed to me, and which I thought it proper to voice here.

I hope that I have said enough in the short catalogue that I nave given to underline my point, with which, I noticed, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, the Chairman of the Select Committee, nodded in agreement, to illustrate the complexity of this matter. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

I have just two things to say in conclusion. First, I naturally welcome any move which would enable the Select Committee to do its job efficiently, which is presumably the basis of the motion. But, if I may respectfully say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chamber when the motion was moved. It was moved only formally. One of our difficulties is that we have not yet had any explanation from the Government of their reasons for the motion. I very much hope that we shall have an assurance from them that they will not exercise pressure of any sort on the Select Committee to do a botched or rushed job to fit in with their legislative programme. If there had been a statement from the Government when the motion was moved, it would perhaps not be necessary now to pursue the matter at such length.

If we are to have a wealth tax—and there will have to be considerable debate about that principle—there must, in the interests of the House, its reputation and the reputation of its Members, be confidence in the justice and effectiveness of such a tax. Public confidence will certainly be severely damaged if the Select Committee is given an impossible timetable. I do not say that it is being given such a timetable. I say only that because the Government are treating the House in such a cavalier fashion, and have as yet made no statement on the matter, we do not know what the timetable is.

The problem is that there is a genuine precedent for extreme anxiety, and that is within the recent memory of the House. I make no comment on the principle of the capital transfer tax, but certainly the way in which the Government pushed their version of the tax through Parliament was an unpleasant parody of the way in which tax reform should be handled. The original proposals were put forward with so little thought about their probable effect on industry and agriculture that the Minister responsible was obliged to amend them drastically as they proceeded through the House—so drastically that the printers were unable to keep pace with the new proposals and unable to keep either the Opposition or the general public up to date with the changes.

Perhaps I may quote from something a Treasury Minister said a few weeks ago: No doubt we shall have to make amendments in future years when we have had some practical experience of the working of the tax". Many of us will reflect that by that time much unnecessary injustice will have been done and much unnecessary economic damage caused. My intention tonight is to ensure that history does not repeat itself. The question arises who is to blame for what I would regard as that disgraceful performance. I could not say whether the blame belonged to the Treasury, to the Government's unrealistic plans for sweeping tax changes—I will not call them reforms since too many changes are dignified by the term reform in these days—whether it was the obsolete secrecy and solemnity of our Budget ceremony, or whether the fault lies with the Inland Revenue.

That kind of affair does the House of Commons no good. It causes bitter resentment and much practical difficulty outside. I hope that tonight we shall have undertakings that the House will not be put through that sort of practice again.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I should like to support what has been said so far in the debate. I was one of those who suffered through the terrible traumas of the capital transfer tax which was put through with an incredibly tight timetable and with no apparent thought for what its effects would be. It was extraordinary that a major tax reform of that sort had to be introduced in the middle of the night and debated through the night. It is extraordinary that the amount of amendment which was necessary has still not come to an end. We are bound to have to make many changes in the future.

That experience was so traumatic for me and so unpleasant that I am glad that at least the wealth tax will be considered by a Select Committee. This fact underlines the need to discover the true consequences of the tax with the greatest of care. The appalling position we are in with the CTT, which is that the Government have put a botched up job on to the statute book and suggested that we should leave it for a few years to see who squeals loudest before we amend it again, should not exist in relation to a major part of our tax system. On the wealth tax it is right that a Select Committee should go through the details, difficulties and possible consequences with the greatest of care. I cannot see how this may be assisted by dividing the Committee into sub-committees. I do not know how many such sub-committees arc proposed since we have had no word from the Government about it.

Let us assume that three sub-committees are proposed and that 60 bodies want to give evidence. This would be shared, with 20 bodies going to each sub-committee. The first thing that will have to happen is that all members of the other two sub-committees will have to read the evidence given to the third sub-committee. They will not have had the benefit of hearing it. Thus, no time will be saved since they will have to digest the evidence in written form.

It is dangerous that the Committee should be asked to assimilate this evidence and consider the points of view of the many interests affected by delegating the task to a sub-committee. When we went through the capital transfer tax it was astonishing to discover how many interests were affected. It affected every type of profession, industry and business. It affected farming, trusts, settlements—there was no end. The whole of the country is caught up in these taxes. There will not be a complete picture if certain members of this Select Committee hear only certain parts of the evidence. They will simply have to inform each other about what they miss.

Nor is the situation similar to that of the Expenditure Committee of which I have the privilege to be a member. That Committee divides itself into subcommittees, one of which deals with economics, another with trade and industry, another with education and another with social services. They deal with totally separate subjects. In no sense do they get in one another's way or overlap in their work. Here the proposal is one and indivisible, namely that there should be a wealth tax. The effects on the whole range of interests should be considered by the same people.

I cannot understand how the appointment of sub-committees will in any way affect the progress of the Committee or improve its efficiency in dealing with the many complex problems involved. Indeed, the reserve is probably true. If one subcommittee was, for the sake of argument, to take evidence on the crippling effects on agriculture, which I think will represent a major problem, it might become quite knowledgeable and specialist in that area. The other members of the Committee will not be aware of that problem. That sub-committee might propose reliefs or alterations designed to alleviate the burden on the farmer which will be at variance with the reliefs or proposals put forward by another sub-committee dealing with the problems affecting private companies, the national heritage or any other aspect of our life.

This is a formula which will make the work of the sub-committees much more difficult. It does not seem to add to making progress or in any way assist the proper consideration of the tax. It would be very much better to leave the Committee as one main Committee. Let it hear the whole of the evidence from all bodies and then it will begin to see how everything fits together.

I am sorry to keep referring to the capital transfer tax, but it is a salutary experience, and I can impart some information to the House. We found that with each interest that was affected—forestry, farming, historic buildings—there were certain problems requiring special treatment. The result has been that the tax is riddled with anomalies. That is why it is so unsatisfactory. We were at least able to point out that the citizen engaged in agriculture should be treated differently from the citizen engaged in industry. We were able to point out the anomaly whereby those who owned historic buildings were relieved from tax while those whose houses were less beautiful or less spectacularly attractive were made to pay the tax. Such poblems can be dealt with only by the Committee sitting as a whole. I thoroughly deprecate any attempt to split the committee into three.

I do not understand why it is such a pressing matter for the Select Committee to report. I imagine that the Government's motive in appointing sub-committees is to speed up the proceedings. I suppose that the naive view of the Deputy Chief Whip who, having moved the motion, has vacated the Chamber without having explained the purpose, is that by being split into three parts the proceedings will be three times as fast. I do not believe that to be so, nor do 1 believe that procedure to be desirable. The Committee should take a considerable time to consider this matter.

Every year that goes by the amount of wealth in the country is reduced by other forms of taxation, so that by the time the Committee reports there may not be much left to tax, and people may come to believe that it is not worth having a wealth tax.

Mr. Peyton

My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the main points of the debate. The motion was moved by the Deputy Chief Whip, who has since removed himself from the Chamber. He is wise to have done so, and I have nothing but admiration for his discretion. But the Government would be well advised at a comparatively early stage in our discussion to say what is in their mind in moving the motion. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the cue. For the motion just to be formally moved is an insolent and offensive procedure which is unacceptable to the House.

Mr. Ridley

I thank my right hon. Friend for saying that. It is interesting to see the degree of support for the motion on the Government benches. It consists of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chairman of the Select Committee. It is typical of the Government to think that if someone is sitting on the Government benches, that is enough to justify the motion. It is not enough. We should like to hear a few words. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will rise to his feet and justify the motion. On many occasions only one or two hon. Members and perhaps a Whip or two have been on the Government benches, and that is all. Government supporters do not come to the House to discuss their business. The Government rely on a steam-roller majority. They believe that the House should approve everything they do and they are not interested in debate.

The least the Government owe the House is a justification of the motion which, on the face of it, seems to be aimed at trying to steam-roller something through a Select Committee in addition to the Government's desire to steamroller the motion through the House.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

I do not wish the motion to go through the House without protesting against the over-elaboration of committees from which we suffer under the Government. During the 1970–74 Parliament we discussed the problem of adequately briefing hon. Members for their tasks and passing them sufficient information to enable them to speak with knowledge and, if possible, authority on the subjects which come before the House.

Because of the increasing complexity and volume of legislation, many hon. Members agreed that we required a system of Select Committees in which that information could be given. I was against that idea because, like many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I thought that in principle it was bad in that it would transfer activity away from the Chamber, which is the essential forum, into closed committees which would have less interest for the public and in which the efforts of individual hon. Members, often experts in certain subjects, would be channelled off and possibly wasted. Under the present Government, that system has grown and proliferated. In this motion, we are presented with yet another piece of committee proliferation.

The question is whether such committees are intended for the purposes of information or of research for hon. Members. Information is one thing, but research is another and is not something that the House should require. Research may well be required by a Government—and the present Government need it perhaps most of all, since no more ignorant Government have ever held office in this country. The work being done by Select Committees under the present Government is not work for hon. Members in order to equip them the better to do their duties. It is work for the Government.

The Government are rigging, maintaining. managing, devising, dividing and elaborating committees for their own purposes, and we make insufficient criticism and complaint about it, but with this motion it is time for us to say "No further—and certainly not before your proposal has been justified."

We have Standing Committees galore—far more than ever before in recent times. There are so many of them that hon. Members who have the time in the mornings to attend them are fully occupied. We have more legislation going through than ever before. The volume and complexity of the work baffles most hon. Members. They cannot cope with the amount of work being done.

Mr. Ridley

Has my hon. Friend noticed that there has been a 33⅓per cent. diminution in the attendance on the Government benches?

Mr. Stanbrook

Yes. Only two Labour Members are now present, but that does not worry me over much since 50 per cent. of them constitute the Government.

Standing Committees are the process by which the House does its work of scrutinising the executive's legislation. That is the proper function of Standing Committees. The argument about Select Committees is quite different, and must be distinguished from the spurious arguments used some years ago—that they equip hon. Members with more information for their work.

Select Committees can be divided into two categories. The first comprises those dealing with subjects of constant interest, such as race relations and expenditure. Their work will ever be with us because their subjects are always with us. Such Committees are agents of the House itself in keeping a general review of such subjects. They have a legitimate function, but even then it is important not to over-elaborate and dilute the work of the hon. Members concerned.

The second category comprises, unfortunately, sub-committees of Select Committees, studying particular subjects. For example, I attended a sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee recently. It was examining the subject of charities and the law of charities. Four witnesses were being examined to brief the subcommittee, which consisted of three hon. Members. This very serious and important topic was being dealt with by three Members, as agents, presumably of the Expenditure Committee or the House itself. It was apparent to me that none of the three Members concerned had the background knowledge to absorb that sort of expert high level of information which they were being given at that sitting of the sub-committee.

Members concerned must find it difficult to keep track of the subjects and the work they are doing, apart from being able to brief other Members of the House. They are certainly not enabling us as a body to speak with greater authority or knowledge about these subjects when they come before the House, Three Members alone might understand what is going on in regard to that subject, but that is of no assistance whatever to the House as a whole.

The other sort of Select Committee that is set up is the Select Committee dealing with specific subjects of contemporary controversy. The Select Committee on a Wealth Tax with which we are now dealing is such a Committee. It is an entirely different type of Select Committee. On that sort of subject hon. Members are in danger of doing the Government's job for them.

As for the iniquitous proposal that there should be a wealth tax, I do not share the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in giving a general welcome to such a tax.

Mr. du Calm

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I must inform him that I did not welcome the tax. I said that I approached the subject in a spirit of fair-mindedness and open-mindedness. I cannot welcome something that I have not yet seen.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that, because I did not think it right that anybody should welcome a confiscatory tax such as the wealth tax is likely to be.

We are dealing here with a subject of great controversy and concern. It is a subject which, so far, has been dealt with in a restricted committee. As a nonmember of that committee, I do not know what progress has been made and what justification there is for any such tax. We are now greeted with a proposal that there should be sub-committees of the Select Committee. It is not clear who the members of such a sub-committee should be and whether they should be taken from the main Committee or appointed from outside the Committee. Either way the workload on individual Members is to be increased. There will be a congestion in the channels of information which theoretically are supposed to be available to the House. It is no use saying that we need more channels for this information—for example, more sub-Committees—because the amount of work available is likely to increase in intensity. It would be wrong to dignify committees of that kind with the description "sub-committees of a Select Committee of the House of Commons".

The proposal for sub-committees of the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax has never been properly put or argued, and no reasons have been given which might enable the subject to be properly considered. For those reasons, in principle I am totally against the motion.

Mr. Winterton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the extremely complicated matters dealt with by the motion, is it not extraordinary that no Treasury Minister is present on the Government Front Bench? Therefore. should not the House be adjourned and the debate be continued on another day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

I do not see anything complicated in the business that is before the House. The motion is perfectly straightforward. Therefore, the matter does not raise a point of order.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether what the Government are proposing is quite straightforward. With the greatest respect, I doubt it. I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to that point because I want to move—I hope that you will accept it—a motion that the debate be now adjourned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) commented on the fact that no Minister had yet spoken to this motion. He suggested that one Minister should do so. The response from the Parliamentary Secretary was slightly disappointing, even by the standards of this Government. He said that he would rise when he was ready. I believe that the House is in a great difficulty in continuing indefinitely to debate a subject on which we have as yet heard no arguments in favour. I respectfully suggest that the debate should be now adjourned in the absence of argument adduced by the Government.

At least we have been successful so far in multiplying the occupants of the Government Front Bench by five. Previously there was only one occupant. Whether that fact is to be interpreted as total and unmixed good fortune is another matter. The Government, when they stop talking to each other, are prepared to listen to some of the arguments adduced by the Opposition. We have all the time in the world. Unless a Minister is prepared to adduce some of the arguments in favour of this proposal the Government will be treating the House with major contempt.

Therefore I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept a motion, to which I have no doubt that a number of my hon. Friends will contribute, that further debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Member submitted to the Chair that the Parliamentary Secretary had made a statement about his unreadiness to speak. I did not hear him. He has not, according to the point of order, refused to rise. I do not know whether it is a mental or physical state of unreadiness. As long as the Parliamentary Secretary is not refusing to reply at some stage I cannot accept the motion.

Mr. Ridley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I disagree with my right hon. Friend.

When I suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary should intervene I thought that he nodded vigorously. As a result of my naivity and lack of experience of the House I thought that meant that the hon. Gentleman was about to rise. For that reason I sat down, since I thought he was about to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Otherwise I would have continued for a long time because I had not nearly finished my speech. It was only to facilitate the hon. Gentleman's remarks that I resumed my seat. I was astonished when he did not rise to address the House. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that he was not ready, but perhaps, being seated further away from him than my right hon. Friend, I could not have heard in any case.

It is odd when the only contribution of a Minister proposing a motion is to the effect that he is not ready. Surely a Minister should come to the House ready to answer the debate. It would greatly facilitate matters if the hon. Gentleman were now prepared to address us, otherwise the House is placed in an appalling difficulty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that we are now approaching the humourous side, shall I say.

Hon. and right hon. Members know full well that no one can compel any hon. or right hon. Member to rise to speak at any time. The Minister has not refused to rise, according to what has been related to the Chair. As long as the Minister is not refusing to do that—and even if he did refuse—there is nothing that the Chair can do to make him rise to his feet to reply.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I think that I might be able to help the House. I hope that I have few prejudices, but I am prejudiced against subcommittees and, by and large against Governments. However, in this case most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far have laboured under a simple misapprehension. This proposal was not originated by the Government at all. It originates from the Select Committee.

Being prejudiced, as I am, against subcommittees, I was somewhat reluctant to agree to this proposal, which was pressed on me by all the members of the Committee, and notably by those belonging to the Conservative Party. I was convinced by their arguments that it was a sensible proposal. I confirmed several times with every member of the Committee—I think that the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) will confirm what I am saying—that it was the unanimous view of the members of the Committee, of both sides, that it was desirable that sub-committees should be appointed.

As a matter of the procedure of the House, I found it odd that a Select Committee could not resolve itself into subcommittees without a motion being approved by the full House of Commons. Nevertheless, apparently that is so. On every other Select Committee of which I have been a member it has been decided for purely practical reasons of efficiency and economy that the Committee be resolved into sub-committees.

That is all that is at issue here. I started with the simple-minded idea which we heard tonight from the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), but I was convinced by the arguments and experience that this was the proper course. The simple reason, which I think will commend itself to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), was precisely to examine scrupulously and thoroughly not merely all the arguments but all the submissions by many learned authorities. It was essentially the organisation of a certain economy of labour by which certain people could spend a good deal of time meeting witnesses and hearing their specialist cases. There is no doubt that in practice this can be done more efficiently by probably not more than two sub-committees than if the main Committee attempted to do it.

I would point out to Opposition Members that if the whole Committee were to continue for five years, that would very severely limit the amount of time its members could give to attending debates in this Chamber. I am also at one with other hon. Members in thinking that by and large we have too many Select Committees and not enough time to spend in the Chamber.

Those were the powerful arguments for carrying through this job in an enonomical as well as an efficient manner. I emphasise again that the proposal came not from the Government but from the Committee.

Mr. du Cann

The House will be grateful for the explanation that the right hon. Gentleman has so courteously afforded. It will assist the House. However, can the right hon. Gentleman state quite clearly that there has been no pressure of any kind from the Government to get this taxation introduced promptly and that this proposal for sub-committees is absolutely and exclusively his idea and the unanimous idea of the Committee?

Mr. Jay

Yes. There was no suggestion whatever from the Government that the Committee should resolve itself into sub-committees. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the position is that the Government have no power to give instructions to a Select Committee of the House in any way. On the other hand, members of the Select Committee cannot give instructions to the Government on its timing. That is the plain situation, not merely in this case but in any other. But we have had no such instructions from the Government.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew (Royal Tunbridge Wells)

As I have no means of knowing the opinion of the Select Committee, I accept what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has said about it. But why has it taken us now 45 minutes to learn that that is the case, if it be? My spirits rose when the occupants of the Government Front Bench began to multiply, but they have started to reduce in numbers now. I thought that we might be reaching the stage when we should learn from the Government, who have proposed the motion, what was in their minds and what was the purpose of the motion. Without any explanation, the motive seemed to be particularly smelly. It seemed to be consistent only with a desire on the Government's part to get this wealth tax on the statute book as soon as possible.

With respect to the Members of the Select Committee who may have thought it a good idea, they are overlooking the virtue of cross-examination of evidence. Every witness can be examined by whichever fraction of the Select Committee he appears before, but half the value of the Select Committee procedure must be the ability to cross-examine evidence. Though one may read the evidence which has been called before one part of a Select Committee of which one is not a member, one has no opportunity to cross-examine.

I want to know why the Government have detained the House by moving the motion without any explanation. The Leader of the House is now leaving. For all the contribution that he has made, he might never have come at all. We never expected him to make any contribution, because we know him now to be the master of flexible silence.

May we now hear from one or other of the occupants of the Government Front Bench whether the explanation courteously afforded by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is correct.

10.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price)

I did not rise at the beginning of the debate because I expected to hear an argument, as I understood it, between members of the Select Committee who want these sub-committees and right hon. and hon. Gentleman who quite properly do not.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was right about the Government's part being minimal. We agreed, rightly or wrongly —that will be a matter for the House to decide—to a request from the Select Committee. As my right hon. Friend said—I am sure that this is correct—there was no pressure of any kind upon him and his colleagues. They came to the Lord President with a request. The Lord President took the view that it was a perfectly proper request and he was happy to meet it. That is what we are doing tonight.

I took the view—I may have been wrong—that it did not need any great explanation from me at the beginning as this was a matter between members of the Select Committee who want these sub-committees and those who hold different views.

I have the feeling that what I have been listening to for the last hour has been the issue of the wealth tax rather than the narrow procedural motion.

I ask the House to bear in mind that the request for sub-committees came unanimously from the Select Committee. That is not in dispute. There is nothing revolutionary about that. I understand that we have sub-committees of the Select Committees on Expenditure, Services, European Secondary Legislation, Nationalised Industries and Science and Technology.

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on more than one occasion used the phrase "steamroller". He said that we intended to steamroller this motion through whether the House liked it or not. I am sure that the Government Chief Whip would be delighted to think that it was possible to steam-roller anything through this House with a majority of one. That certainly is not the intention and was not the Government's idea. We were merely responding to a request from members of a Select Committee.

Mr. du Cann

I am sure that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the clear statement that there was a request from the Select Committee to which the Government properly and graciously acceded. Will he go a little further and answer two questions? First, can the House take it that at no time was any timetable laid down by any Treasury Minister for the completion of the Committee's work? Secondly, will he confirm that the Government, Treasury Ministers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be happy to see any of the bodies which have requested to come before the Cornmittee and be interviewed by it before the Government come to a final conclusion about the shape of the tax?

Mr. Price

I think that those are fair questions. On the first, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North who has been around this House for a lot longer than I have and who, I suspect, knows the procedure of this place far better than I do. He gave the House an assurance on behalf not only of himself but of his Committee that there had been no Government pressure. I do not know whether there has or has not, but I know my right hon. Friend well enough to believe that if he says that there has not, that is likely to be the truth.

I should be very surprised indeed if the Select Committee, for whatever reasons, particularly reasons of time, refused to see, talk to and listen to any organisation or individual who wanted to see it.

Mr. du Cann

With respect, the word that I used was not "pressure" but "request". That is different.

Mr. Price

I am not aware of any request either, and I should have thought it would have placed the Select Committee in a difficult situation if the Government had said, demanded, requested, or any other phrase one wants to use, that this work must be completed by a specific time. It is fair to say, and it is right to acknowledge, that the Government made it clear in the Green Paper that there was a long-term timetable, but I have been reading this again in the last few minutes and I should not have thought that that timetable would affect the work of this Select Committee. If it does, I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will want to look at the matter again.

All I say in conclusion is that if the House thinks I was discourteous in being an hour late in rising to speak to the motion, I apologise. This motion is before the House to meet the unanimous wish of the Select Committee appointed last December, and I understand that the timing has been arranged to fit in with the Committee's programme. The proposal to give the Select Committee power to appoint sub-committees brings it into line with the majority of Select Committees, and I should have thought and hoped that, bearing in mind where this request came from—not from the Government, and not as a result of pressure of any sort—the House would consider the motion to be reasonable.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of other Select Committees as precedents fot having sub-committees. I think it is fait to say that these were different in kind from this which is what one might call a pre-legislative committee of inquiry into the structure of a tax to which, as at present defined, a proportion of the Committee is opposed in any case. It forces us to consider, as best we can, how to fulfil the commitment in the Green Paper in a way which both sides of the Committee consider to be the least damaging to the interests of those whom we have been elected to represent.

The Minister said that he expected to hear during the debate a discussion between members of the Select Committee and other Members of the House. If he had heard that, the representations from members of Select Committee of both sides this evening would have been roughly proportional to the party representation normally attending the Select Committee itself.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). He said, perfectly correctly, that the Select Committee was unanimous in wishing to divide its work of inquiry and cross-examination into two or a number of sub-committees. I do not think he specified how many, and certainly the motion does not. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that it will not speed the Committee's deliberations. Either the sub-committees have to go through all the process of writing separate reports or they have to have prolonged consultation with the Select Committee to consider the evidence which they have elucidated separately on cross-examination.

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary did not intend to mislead the House when he said that he knew of no possibility that the Government's programme might put pressure on the Committee's timetable. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North is right to say that there has been no direct pressure on the Select Committee. But we were led informally to understand that if our deliberations bore fruit too late it might be difficult for the Government to take account of them and follow their expressed intention, which they have never denied, of introducing this legislation in next year's Budget.

As an ex-Treasury Minister, I know the Budget timetable and I know that if the Chancellor is determined to introduce this extremely complex, wide-ranging tax change in 1976, there is inevitably severe constraint on the time available for the Committee's work. Normally this would mean that it would have to draft its report in time to be considered by the House before the Budget deliberations started seriously some time in the autumn.

Mr. William Price

I hope that I did not mislead the House just now. If I did, I should like to clear the matter up. I said that I understood that the Select Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, was unanimous in requesting the Lord President to set up these sub-committees. Was I wrong to say that?

Mr. Macmillan

No, the hon. Gentleman certainly was not wrong. Of course we were unanimous. We all wished to complete a report which had examined all the complexities of the proposed taxation and its implications for many different income groups. We wanted to consider the evidence of Government Departments. themselves setting out the possibilities of serious distortions to the economy. That is why, knowing that to be of any use the report would have to be in time to be considered by the Government before the autumn, we were unanimous in wanting sub-committees which we hoped would enable us to get on with our work without skimping it.

Mr. Ridley

My right hon. Friend refers to "the Budget" of 1976. Can he say which one he means? There are now usually two, if not three.

Mr. Macmillan

I think that it is what one might call the "first" Budget of the year to which the Green Paper refers. But before that time there are many hurdles for the Government to jump.

The Committee was unanimous in this desire. It has no sides, fortunately. Our disagreements are as much technical as political. We all wanted to give careful examination to the matter. We want to make it plain to all those whose interests could be adversely affected, people who have already done a great deal of work on the capital transfer tax, that they have ample opportunity to make representations to the Committee, and that we have ample time to give careful consideration to their representations not only over the wealth tax but to possible exceptions to the capital transfer tax.

All that had to be done under the constraint of a normal Budget timetable. I have no reason to suppose that it would be ameliorated to enable the Select Committee to report later than would be expected for ordinary Budget representations. I understand the Chancellor's wish to have the Committee's deliberations and the view of the House on them at an early stage, because it is a serious and difficult tax change to fit into the whole of his Budget structure.

There is no denying that to meet the timetable will mean a great deal of hard and long work for the Select Committee. We must examine many witnesses in a relatively short space of time. That is why we all decided that having subcommittees was one method by which we could perhaps not speed up the work but carry out the work at the necessary speed without breaking down under the load of paper and the work load of individual members. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North asked the Leader of the House to move the motion on behalf of the whole Committee.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

The worrying thing about the situation in which the House finds itself is that the unanimity of the Select Committee is not reflected by unanimity in the rest of the House. I am certain that it is not the wish of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office to mislead the House. One's attitude will be affected by his assurance that the splitting up of the Select Committee into two or three bits will in no way inhibit organisations from giving evidence.

I understand that the National Farmers' Union, which is vitally involved in the whole question of the wealth tax, has been told that it has only an hour in which to give evidence. Can we be certain that such organisations will have unlimited time to develop all possible sides of an argument which is of great importance to all sections of industry?

Most of us would regard the motion as a way to expedite Government legislation. It is scandalous that the Leader of the House has not bothered to stay for the rest of the debate. Those of us who attend regularly on Thursdays because we are worried about the Government timetable are now convinced that he has endless time to give away in the rest of the Session on trifling matters. Why should we suffer a device which most of us regard as purely a way of expediting the proceedings of the Committees, when we know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman is not pushed for time for the rest of the Session? He has plenty of time for trivial matters, nothing like as important as the matter the Committee is considering. Most of us here tonight regard the motion purely as a method of expediting the Government's business, and I am not prepared to co-operate with the Government in that objective at the moment.

Therefore, without an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that every organisation that wishes to give evidence to this very important Committee will have the unfettered right to put all the points it wishes, I am not prepared to agree to the motion.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but perhaps as a member of the Committee I may say something which might help the House. I have not yet made up my mind as to what räle, if any, the wealth tax might properly play in our overall tax system. As one who is happy to be joined in the unanimity of the Committee on the merits of having sub-committees, I should like to make one point clear to the House, and I hope that it is one with which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will agree. Our unanimity arose because we felt that if we had subcommittees we would be able to do a slightly better job of the task entrusted to us. We felt that we should be able to hear evidence in person from more of those bodies which are deeply interested in the subject and which submitted evidence to the Select Committee.

This very day I have been studying M98 and M99. I take it that the numbering of our evidence is unconnected with MI, M2 and M3 concerning the money supply. We are well past M100, and the deluge of paper shows no sign of slackening. I must make it clear, however, that even with sub-committees, we on the Committee feel that we shall find it extremely difficult to give adequate consideration to the vast body of evidence submitted and to give the time to hear evidence from Government Departments. There has been reference to the Ministry of Agriculture, which is intensely interested in the subject.

Sir David Renton

I wonder whether my hon. Friend realises—a point which is generally not known—that, judged by any test one cares to apply, agriculture is our largest industry? Does he confirm that it is to be limited to only one hour for giving evidence?

Mr. Sainsbury

I believe that the allocation is one and a half hours or two hours. I would contest my hon. and learned Friend's contention that agriculture is our largest industry, and I say that without wishing to belittle the industry. Purely on the test of employment, retailing and retail distribution is a bigger industry, as are a number of others. However, I agree with him about the vital importance of that industry.

With the right hon. Member for Battersea, North I welcomed, indeed almost pressed for, sub-committees. But even with the benefit of them we shall not be giving adequate time to hear the evidence even from the bodies we have been able to fit into the timetable. I do not accept the suggestion that forming sub-committees is by itself a solution which will enable the Select Committee to do its job properly. I should have liked an indication not only that we could have sub-committees, which cover a valuable aspect of the work, but that we would be given no timetable which would prevent us from giving proper consideration to that evidence and our deliberations on it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

I had not proposed to intervene in this debate because, like my other right hon. and hon Friends, I have the privilege to be a member of this Select Committee. I have been prompted to intervene by the challenge issued by the Minister whether the Select Committee was unanimous in wanting these sub-committees. I confirm that the recommendation of the Select Committee was unanimous.

It is right that the House should know the background to our decision. It would not be appropriate for me or any other member of the Committee to go into detail about the deliberations of the Select Committee. It is right to make it clear that it has been intimated to the Committee in the most tactful and delicate way that if our conclusions and deliberations are to have due weight with the Chancellor we must report in time for our conclusions to form the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's Budget preparations for the financial year 1976–77.

It is a common occurrence that the right hand of Government does not know what the left hand is doing. I acquit the Minister of wishing to mislead the House, but it is apparent that he was unaware of the delicate intimations that have been conveyed to us from the Treasury. I suggest to him that if he is to take part in debates of this kind in future and endeavour to guide the House on matters of some delicacy and importance, he should acquaint himself with what his right hon. and hon. Friends in Great George Street are thinking.

Mr. William Price

As a relative newcomer to the Government Front Bench I am grateful for all the advice people are kind enough to offer. I can only say that we heard, before I spoke, from the Chairman of the Select Committee. I thought that he made the position absolutely clear. I thought that his explanation had been accepted by the House, apart from anything I said.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman is now verging on the disingenuous. There is a great difference between his position and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). His right hon. Friend is a person of enormous distinction and perhaps greater experience than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Price

That is not in dispute.

Mr. Rees

Indeed.

Mr. Price

I have been here longer than the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees).

Mr. Rees

The right hon. Gentleman has been here a great deal longer than I have. And he has served the House with far greater distinction.

Mr. Price

So have I.

Mr. Rees

If the hon. Gentleman is able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make another speech. Ifind it a little unattractive that a member of the Government Front Bench should so consistently intervene in my short contribution. I hope that I have given him ample opportunity to explain himself.

The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. It would have been better, and perhaps would have shortened our deliberations, had he risen in the first instance. Let me point out why it is that his position is different from that of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend speaks not as a member of the Government, regrettably in my view, but as the Chairman of the Select Committee. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman has been endeavouring to advise and guide our deliberations as a member of the Government.

It would have been better, since he has spoken with some asperity, if he had troubled to inform himself of the intimation that has been given to the Select Committee by the Chancellor. It would not be appropriate for me to be drawn further. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's challenge has compelled my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to raise this matter. It is right that it should be known that the Select Committee reached unanimity in view of the intimations conveyed to us from Great George Street. It is right that the public should appreciate the background against which all sides—because all three great parties arc represented on the Committee—reached this decision. I deeply regret—I do not say this too critically—that the representatives on the Select Committee from the Liberal Party and the Labour Party are not represented in greater strength here tonight, because they, too, might have assisted the House in its deliberations. That is all that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) are attempting to do. It would be wrong if we were to play a more direct part in the debate. All that we can do is to give the background to the motion.

I believe that all sides—if indeed, as my right hon. Friend said, there are sides to a Select Committee—are anxious to undertake a thorough and proper investigation of the complexities of a novel and possibly highly damaging and dangerous tax. We are very anxious that the errors, the anomalies and the gross crudities of the capital transfer tax should not be reproduced in any tax which may subsequently be introduced on the basis of the Green Paper.

It would not be proper for me to speculate on that, because we may have to reach a conclusion on that in our report. Ally conclusion we reach should be reached on the basis of secret deliberations in the Select Committee and not on the Floor of the House. I greatly hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate our conclusions.

We were unanimous. We want to do a thorough and proper job. We want to do it free from any constraints, however informally they may be imposed by the Chancellor and his right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that when the House reaches a decision on the motion and, at a later stage, when it considers our conclusions, it will bear this fact in mind and will recognise the difficulties under which members of the Select Committee are currently labouring.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

We are discussing a very unusual Select Committee. Although the matter it has to consider is very important for Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland does not have as much wealth as the rest of Great Britain, there is not one Scottish Member on the Select Committee. Scottish Members would like to keep in touch with the important deliberations of this Select Committee. It would impose an impossible task on them if they had to keep in touch with the deliberations of three sub-committees as well. There may well be a case for suspending the work of the Committee instead of setting up three sub-committees.

I draw the attention of hon. Members to a Written Answer published yesterday. Page 1 of the Green Paper on the Wealth Tax refers to the possibility of a tax on sums of £100,000. The Written Answer given yesterday pointed out that if inflation continued at the present rate for the next 20 years, with no increase—but we know that it is rising—an average worker in a factory in my constituency now receiving £40 a week would need an annual income of £300,000,

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Let us get on with the business. We have had enough of that.

Mr. Taylor

May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to cite individual cases, although no decision has been made on the wealth tax. This is completely out of order.

Mr. Taylor

I am sorry if I offended you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there is not one Scottish Member on the Select Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman was referring to something which was out of order.

Mr. Taylor

My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), in an excellent speech, said that in his view the appointment of sub-committees would not speed up the work of the Select Committee but would ensure that members of the Select Committee did their work more thoroughly. I am sure that as my right hon. Friend is a conscientious Member that would be his approach, but it would not be the approach of every hon. Member.

I wish to argue against this proposal, because I believe that the appointment of sub-committees will speed up the work of the Select Committee and that that will be a bad thing. Inflation is running at an alarming rate. As I have said, at the present rate of inflation a worker in my constituency now earning £40 a week will shortly be earning £300,000 a year. If we accept the motion we shall be in danger of speeding up the work of the Committee at a time when there is no financial stability and of ensuring that the Committee is obliged to make recommendations when we are in the process of seeing how the capital transfer tax is working out and when the Community Land Bill will be coming into effect. When inflation appears to be getting out of control, when money is ceasing to have any real value—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier he would have heard that what we are discussing is the setting up of subcommittees. We are not discussing other matters that are not before the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to stick to the terms of the motion.

Mr. Taylor

I am sorry. I thought that I was doing so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned that the Committee's proceedings should not be speeded up at such a critical time. Scotland is not represented on the Committee. It would be a major blunder to take any step which led to the speeding up of the Committee's work. I hope that the House will think carefully before approving the motion. If the work is speeded up the tax will be introduced at an inappropriate time, when there is a danger of my constituents getting their wages in sacks instead of in packets.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) put his finger on the point in saying that if this procedure is merely a device contrived by the Government to make things convenient for themselves we should look at it again. Those sentiments have inspired almost every speech from the Opposition side.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said that he wished to be assured that this was not a proposition that the Government were putting forward in the hope that it would slip by unnoticed. The Parliamentary Secretary, with his reputation for honesty, integrity and candour, avoided giving that assurance, very rightly, because my right hon. Friend is the last person to swallow that one.

My right hon. Friend went on to say that he hoped that a proper and thorough investigation was being made of a highly complex proposal. He wanted to know that the likely consequences of the tax upon industry and farming were being carefully and dispassionately assessed. He commented upon the House not having had the advantage of any explanation from the Government. That was a characteristically charitable way for my righ hon. Friend to put it, because not all explanations given by the Government are always completely advantageous to what they have in mind.

My right hon. Friend commented in his usual delicate fashion upon the cavalier way in which the House had been treated, and he then used two pithy sentences. He said that too may phrases had been dignified by the name of reform and that too much ritual was attached to our Budget procedures. I have longed for the day when a Chancellor of the Exchequer would arrive at the Dispatch Box with the news that he had thrown Mr. Gladstone's box into the river and would not speak for three hours or emulate his predecessors in giving a totally inadequate diagnosis of our troubles and a forecast which in the event failed to be any more accurate than those which had gone before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) properly distinguished this Select Committee from other Committees and deprecated the attempt to split it up. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) rightly drew attention to the fact that there is grave danger in multiplying activities which tend to draw attention away from this Chamber, which is the centre of the House of Commons. I be-live that it is one of the more discreditable tactics of the Government so to multiply the business of the House that the capacity and opportunity which hon. Members have available to play a useful part here is seriously diminished.

The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), as one would expect, with all the great weight of his experience and wisdom, did his best to make the whole show look reasonably respectable. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) was so successful that he actually got the Parliamentary Secretary to his feet—no mean feat. Everyone else had tried before; to my hon. and learned Friend fell the opportunity to hook the fish.

Mr. William Price

I am shy.

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman is not always shy. I am tempted into cordiality at this time of night. I pay the hon. Gentleman the tribute which has been paid to the Minister of Agriculture—that since he ascended to the Front Bench, if that is the right word, he has made great improvement in charm over that which he was able to show when he was on the back benches, when I recollect a rather different attitude. Nevertheless, it would be ungracious on our part if we did not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his progress, which we hope will be maintained.

Mr. William Price

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I say with great humility that I have detected the same tendencies in him.

Mr. Peyton

I think there must be a stop to this somewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said so himself.

Mr. Peyton

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Any praise from you is praise indeed.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones)

This is terrible.

Mr. Peyton

The Under-Secretary of State, who has his feet up, says that this is terrible. Perhaps he might look in the mirror before he makes such comments. He would be well advised to keep his mouth shut—to keep quiet, because we have plenty of opportunities. We have no desire to hurry proceedings. When people who should be dumb on the Front Benches suddenly find their voice, sometimes it has consequences they did not intend.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he was not aware of any request from the Government to the Select Committee to speed up its proceedings. He accepted that such a request would have placed the Select Committee in a very difficult position. I think we would all endorse that.

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said indicated that there was a possibility of implied arm-twisting which was very dangerous. He called attention to both the complexity of the issues and the rigours of the timetable. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to what my right hon. Friend said. He made a fair and balanced speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) expressed a hope which all on the Opposition benches share—namely, that in no circumstances will there be any inhibition placed in the way of organisations, such as the National Farmers' Union, in presenting views on a measure which inevitably will have a very great effect on farming.

I listened with attention and care to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and also to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), both of whom have the joy and privilege of serving on the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal, whose restraint I respect, referred with eloquence and force to the difficulties experienced by Members who sit on the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), characteristically and eloquently but with an economy of words for which I would praise him, referred to the fact that there is not one Scottish Member on that Committee.

I do not intend to detain the House long, but there are a number of further points which I should like to make. I have come increasingly to observe that the present Government have little consideration for the convenience and standing of the House of Commons. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) drew my attention to an example in recent months—namely, the withdrawal of grants from grant-aided schools about which the Department of Education and Science had circulated a letter asking for proposals as to how governors should act on the Secretary of State's proposals. My hon. Friend pointed out that no regulations had yet been laid before the House on that subject. I do not comment on the merits of the matter but am concerned simply with the lack of respect or regard shown by Government Departments for the House of Commons.

I wish to go on to refer to the undesirable proliferation of Committee activity which deflects attention from the Chamber. We have currently sitting six Standing Committees and 23 Select Committees and we have not yet decided on a sensible way of handling European business, though the Procedure Committee has reported on the matter. [Interruption.] The Deputy Government Chief Whip is now seeking to emulate his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who has already won for himself the title of the most garrulous Whip there has been in this House for many years.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

Thank you very much.

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to challenge his right hon. colleague.

I wonder whether, in face of the enormous volume of Committee work, the House would be well advised to accept the motion tonight. It seems to the Opposition that the one principle if that is the right word—by which the Government are animated is that nothing should be allowed to halt the stream of Government business, however ill considered that business might be, however ill put together it is, however vicious or however silly. Complaints are frequently made that the House is often empty on important occasions. I believe that a large part of the blame for this in the end properly belongs to Governments who insist on hogging too much parliamentary time for the digestion of these ill-favoured and ill-considered measures.

I shall refrain at this hour of the night from going at length into the merits of the wealth tax or even into the burdens placed upon the Select Committee. Suffice it to say that the Select Committee meets for four hours at a time. It has already held a considerable number of meetings. It has a considerable agenda.

I doubt whether we would be wise to accept this motion, which, it seems to me, has been put forward with little more than thin unanimity on the part of the Committee, based on the charity and understanding of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members of it and who do not wish to be seen to obstruct. Nevertheless, this motion has found very few friends amongst those who have spoken. If my right hon. and hon. Friends are minded to divide the House, I shall not wish to discourage them.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Ordered, That every such Sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records ; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place ; and to report to the Committee from time to time:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken by and Memoranda laid before such Sub-committees:

Ordered, That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committee.

Forward to