Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

HC Deb 14 July 1997 vol 298 cc21-74 3.35 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo)

rose—

Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I want to raise a serious matter.

Last Wednesday, I introduced a debate on freedom of information. I was given an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, that the Government would issue a White Paper very shortly and that it remained my right hon. Friend's intention to do this before the House rises in a few weeks' time."—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 907.] Barely was that debate concluded than we heard through the media, not through the House, that there was no such intention. For reasons that are not clear, the proposal to publish a White Paper has now been delayed indefinitely yet again. Therefore, the information given to the House on Wednesday was incorrect.

TABLE
Allotted day	Proceedings	Time of conclusion of proceedings
First day	Clause 1	7:00 p.m.
	Clause 15	10:00 p.m.
Second day	Clause 17	7:00 p.m.
	Clause 19	10:00 p.m.

(3) When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in Committee of the whole House.

(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

Standing Committee

2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 23rd July.

(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

(3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee on 23rd July may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th July.

Report and Third Reading

3.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) The Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

Business Committee

4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) paragraph 3 of this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

Will you, Madam Speaker, require the Government to come to the House and correct that information, so that we know where we are with the legislation? Civil servants have been blamed for the delay, but some of us think that some part of the Government may be responsible.

Madam Speaker

I should be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would give me an opportunity to look at the Hansard to which he referred, so that I can make myself familiar with the exchange that took place. I shall take appropriate action if I find that to be necessary.

Dawn Primarolo

I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill:—

Committee of the whole House

1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.

(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 25th July.

(3) Any resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 82, whether before or after the date on which the Committee is to report under this paragraph and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be taken on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations to that order.

Procedure in Standing Committee

5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Report of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Exempted business

8. On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall not apply by virtue of paragraph (a) of that paragraph to any proceedings on the Bill after the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day.

Private business

9.—(1) 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 Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (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 conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

10. 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 or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question 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, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

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

11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) 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 or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; 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.

Recommittal

14.—(1). References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

15. 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; Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House; and Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee.

It is regrettable that we should have to move this motion, but I make absolutely no apology for doing so. I will explain the reasoning behind it, because it is important that not only the House but people outside understand what is at stake and why it is vital that the Finance Bill be on the statute book before the summer recess.

The Budget represents the people's priorities, and the guillotine motion is necessary to protect those priorities. The British people voted for a cut in VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., and the Finance Bill cuts VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. We promised that the cut would be in time for winter bills, and this Finance Bill introduces it by 1 September. The British people voted for a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities to help us to move people back into work. They voted for this Government because we said that education would be our No. 1 priority, and we meant it—£1.3 billion from the windfall levy will be used to rebuild our crumbling schools.

We are as keen as anyone to ensure that the provisions of the Finance Bill are properly aired and scrutinised, both within this House and beyond. It was possible to reach an agreement through the usual channels on the number of days to be allocated to the Budget debate. It was possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the start date for the Committee stage. It was also possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the size of the Standing Committee, and to agree the Opposition's request on what it should be. Unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the timing of the Committee stage.

We asked the Opposition what they wanted, but they could not tell us, and were not prepared to discuss the matter. It was therefore not possible to agree on an end date for the Committee stage. Such a result is highly regrettable, but it leaves the Government with no choice but to act responsibly in ensuring that—as soon as reasonably possible in the financial year—taxpayers are certain where they stand. It is in absolutely no one's interest that uncertainty over the precise terms of tax legislation should continue into the autumn.

I do not need to remind hon. Members that we are already more than a quarter of the way through the current financial year, or that, if the motion is adopted, almost one third of the financial year will have elapsed before the Bill is enacted. Any risk of delay into the autumn would be grossly unfair to taxpayers, who might not know precisely where they stand when they are more than halfway through the financial year.

Uncertainty might, of course, be a price worth paying if it were absolutely necessary to ensure that the measures in the Bill were properly scrutinised. It is not at all necessary, however, to keep taxpayers in a state of suspense by risking delay into the autumn. Furthermore, our Finance Bill will receive more generous scrutiny than that provided by the previous Government.

We have ensured that the four main issues that the Opposition wanted to be debated on the Floor of the House will be debated on the Floor of the House. Last Thursday, we even assisted the Opposition in amending their own motion, so that it was absolutely correct.

We have, moreover, provided two entire days for debate in Committee on the Floor of the House. That is the same amount of time that the previous Government allowed for their 1996–97 Finance Bill, which had twice as many clauses as our Bill, and for their 1995–96 Finance Bill, which had almost four times as many clauses as our Bill.

The Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill will be able to meet for five days. Earlier this year, a Standing Committee had nine days to consider the previous Government's Finance Bill, which had twice as many clauses as our Finance Bill. Therefore, we are being rather more generous with Committee time than the previous Government.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

On today's Order Paper, the Minister will see that the second day of debate on the Finance Bill will be devoted to clauses 17 and 19. Clause 19 deals with pension fund tax credits. As she has told us that the public voted for the Budget and for the consequent Finance Bill, will she tell me, please, where I might find reference in the Labour party's manifesto to pension fund tax credits?

Dawn Primarolo

The hon. and learned Gentleman confirms the point that I was just making—that the Opposition have tabled for debate the issues that they consider to be very important. Those debates will be held on the Floor of the House. The previous Government's Finance Bills enacted full Budgets, and were introduced on the back of an amendment of the law resolution, which allowed for a wide-ranging review of financial matters.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garnier

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would check the loudspeaker arrangements? I am not at all sure that the Minister heard my question. From her answer, she either was not listening or is wilfully refusing to answer my question.

Madam Speaker

That is hardly a point of order for me. I am not responsible for the statements of Ministers. They are responsible for their own comments.

Dawn Primarolo

As I said, the previous Government's Finance Bills enacted full Budgets, and were introduced on the back of an amendment of the law resolution, which allowed for a wide-ranging review of financial matters. Consistent with the approach adopted by previous Administrations in post-election Budgets, in 1983 and 1987, the specific legislative measures in our Financial Bill are more narrowly focused, without requiring an amendment of the law resolution.

Mr. Forth

rose—

Dawn Primarolo

I shall finish this point and then give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

We might therefore, with some justification, have shortened the time for debate. Instead, as I have already explained, we gave four days to the Budget debate, the same time in Committee on the Floor of the House and, pro rata, more time in Standing Committee than the previous Administration gave for a full Finance Bill. That is ample opportunity to scrutinise the Bill.

Mr. Forth

Given that the hon. Lady has rested her argument firmly on people's expectations, which is why the Bill has to be rushed through the House, will she please explain the expectations and urgency of people with pensions to see their pension position worsened? Will she also answer the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about the absence of any reference to the pension provisions in the Labour party's manifesto?

Dawn Primarolo

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that what is important is certainty, and that the taxpayer knows what the tax legislation is. The uncertainty caused for taxpayers by delaying until the autumn would be unacceptable. Delay would also prevent the Government's mandate from being enacted.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

The Minister is making great play of the need for certainty, but surely she realises that, if she rushes the Budget provisions through the House, uncertainty will follow. It is not Members of Parliament who need to debate but the world outside which needs to comment and think through the implications of the Budget.

On the matter of foreign income dividends, it has been necessary for the Paymaster General effectively to recant on part of the Budget already, and say: We are also looking sympathetically at the position of UK-based groups with a substantial amount of foreign income."—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 586.] The Budget is being rushed through so fast that it has not been possible for the Government to take into account even the representations made so far.

Dawn Primarolo

I realise that it is difficult for the Opposition; opposition is very difficult without the resources of the civil service to assist, but the fact is that the Bill is not being rushed. As I am explaining, adequate time is being provided to scrutinise the Bill. Opposition Members would do well to acknowledge that.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

Does the hon. Lady accept that an essential aspect of parliamentary scrutiny of any Bill is the ability of outside bodies—in this case, taxpayers' representatives, and taxpayers themselves—to respond to a Bill when it is published in draft form? It is vital that those of us considering the Bill on the Floor of the House or in Committee should be aware of the response of outside bodies. As the Bill was published only a week ago today, thus artificially foreshortening the process, it has been impossible for outsiders to consider carefully the import of the various proposals, which is necessary if we are to have an informed debate in Committee.

Dawn Primarolo

That is simply not the case. In 1979, the new Conservative Government held the Second Reading six days after publication of the Bill. We published our Bill in draft form six days before Second Reading.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I have listened to these Tory Members of Parliament today and last Thursday speaking about the Bill and the arrangements for debate. I find it very odd that, a few years ago in the last Parliament when the Tories had a majority, they introduced what were known as the Jopling recommendations. One of those recommendations was that guillotines would be a matter of course.

Some of us warned the Tories that, when they got into opposition, they would regret the day that they walked through the Lobbies to get those recommendations through. I would like my hon. Friend to use the help that she has on the Front Bench to find out how many of the Tories who are yapping today about wanting more time went into the Lobbies to vote for the Jopling recommendations to cut out debate.

Dawn Primarolo

I understand that my hon. Friend was against those recommendations. He is entitled to complain. Conservative Members are not, because they supported them. When the shadow Leader of the House was Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, she said during a guillotine debate that she regretted having to introduce the timetable motion—as we certainly do—but continued: However, it is important for the smooth conduct of both the remaining stages of the Bill and parliamentary business as a whole. I commend it to the House."—[Official Report, 9 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 78.] I am doing exactly the same today. It ill behoves Conservative Members who spoke on and voted for guillotine motions when their legislation was going through the House to attack the Government now.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

rose—

Dawn Primarolo

I have taken many interventions, and I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress first.

I assure the House that the Government will pay close attention to the views of the Opposition when the Business Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill meets to discuss the passage of the Bill through Committee. The process will ensure that the Committee directs its attention to those areas of the Bill that merit it.

Our efforts to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised by the House and by those outside did not end with the agreements with the Opposition. We published the Bill in draft ahead of its formal publication, so that the full details of our proposals could be scrutinised by hon. Members and those outside as soon as possible. It has been possible to table amendments since last Monday evening—even before Second Reading.

Sir Peter Emery

Perhaps the hon. Lady will consult the Leader of the House, who is sitting next to her, about the aims of the Business Sub-Committee. Following on from what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, when there is a timetable, should not all sections of a Bill have adequate time to be debated? How is it possible for 15 major parts of a Bill—with many, many more paragraphs—and eight schedules to be properly and adequately debated in a Committee that it is suggested will meet for only five days?

That is nonsense, and it makes nonsense of any suggestion of meeting the Jopling recommendations, or even the proposals being put forward by the Leader of the House to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.

Dawn Primarolo

It is the job of the Business Sub-Committee of the Finance Bill Standing Committee to ensure that those parts of the Bill that need to be debated are adequately debated. We have provided adequate time in the guillotine motion for the scrutiny of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of the allocation of time for parliamentary debates in 1992. Presumably he favours the measure, to ensure the smooth running of the business of the House, and will support us today.

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

rose—

Dawn Primarolo

This must be the last time.

Mr. Shepherd

By what process of divination has the hon. Lady come to the conclusion that the debate on pension funds and tax credits need last only slightly more than two and a half hours? The proposals are of concern to many Members of Parliament and their local authorities. What was the rationale behind providing for such a limited debate?

Dawn Primarolo

There is plenty of time in Committee, and it is the Opposition's choice as to how much time is available.

In 1993, when the previous Government guillotined the Social Security (Contributions) Bill and Statutory Sick Pay Bill to complete all their stages in one day, I do not recall that Conservative Members protested with such vigour as they are now apparently doing today.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

rose—

Dawn Primarolo

I have given way generously, and I must conclude soon, so that other hon. Members can participate in the debate.

The reason for the guillotine is certainty for the taxpayer. It will allow better consideration of the Bill, and will avoid the need to come back with a guillotine after the discussions have started. That could lead to greater problems when scrutinising the Bill.

In 1994, the Finance Bill was guillotined by the previous Government. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Michael Portillo, who is no longer a Member of the House, said that the Bill could proceed through the House on only one of two bases—by agreement between the parties, or by guillotine. We could not get agreement from the Opposition. They want to prevent the Government from proceeding with their Finance Bill, simply because they cannot stand the prospect of a Government being elected and keeping their promises.

We have a clear mandate to act quickly to deal with the problems that the previous Government left us. We have a responsibility to give new hope and opportunity to young people, and to tackle Britain's economic problems for the sake of long-term prosperity. Conservative Members, when in government, delayed taking action to help the unemployed for too long. We have no intention of allowing them to delay us now, when they are in opposition.

We have provided adequate time in the motion for debate on the Finance Bill. We have made every effort to come to an agreement with the Opposition, but they have refused. They do not know what they want; they simply want to destroy the Bill.

I commend the motion to the House.

3.57 pm

Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk)

I have listened with care to what passed for arguments advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in support of the guillotine on the Finance Bill.

We of course agree that the Government of the day must be able to enact their legislation, just as the Opposition of the day must be able to oppose. May I dispel at once the ludicrous assertion that it was not possible for the Government to reach an agreement with the Opposition on the allocation of time? Discussions through the usual channels resulted, helpfully, in changes to the size of the Committee, and agreement on which clauses should be debated on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee. That was correct and right. There was no discussion, however, on the allocation of time—merely a decision on the part of the Government that there should be a guillotine.

The House knows that an allocation of time order is, according to "Erskine May", the most extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House". The House will also know from "Erskine May" that such an order is not usually moved until the rate of progress in committee has provided argument for its necessity. Yet twice in the past seven weeks—twice in the short life of the Government—who are so given to preaching and hectoring the nation about the importance of consultation, consensus and partnership, they have found it necessary to move such an order. In this case, they announced their intention to do so before the Second Reading had even begun. But of course, this Government and these Ministers have already earned an unenviable reputation in the few short weeks since the election for a high-handed disdain towards the House and the parliamentary process.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

I am highly delighted to hear the right hon. Lady quoting "Erskine May". As someone who seriously objects to the use of guillotines, I think that it is helpful when both Front-Bench teams are conscious of the needs of Back Benchers. If she seriously objects to guillotines and if the view that she is expressing is that of her colleagues, why did they move so many guillotine motions themselves?

Mrs. Shephard

We moved only two guillotine motions on the Finance Bill, which should reassure the hon. Lady—and there was an important difference when we used them. Mention has been made of the length of time between the Finance Bill's publication and the end of the Committee stage, during which financial institutions can make their representations. This Government have allowed 12 working days for that process; under successive Conservative Governments an average of 77 working days was allowed.

But, of course, the Government have a high-handed disdain for the House and the parliamentary process. Let us consider their record. They have limited Prime Minister's questions to one session a week. After last week's mauling from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister may well be wishing that he had abolished Prime Minister's questions altogether—no doubt, that is to come.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to the outside world changes to the powers of the Bank of England without bothering to announce them to the House. More regrettably, he, or one of his colleagues, allegedly briefed the press on the contents of the Budget before announcing them to the House. The Leader of the House either cynically or incompetently arranged for the debate on the motion to take place at the same time as the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is scheduled to meet. I am relieved to see that the right hon. Lady is in her place. One would have thought that the Government attached sufficient importance to their Finance Bill not to wish to curtail its consideration. The Chancellor described his Budget as a people's Budget for Britain's future."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 316.] That is surely a portentous enough description for everyone. Curiously, when questioned on her proposal to limit debate on this epoch-making expression of new Labour in practice, the Leader of the House seemed to take a different view in business questions last week. She seemed to think that the importance of a Bill depended on its length. Curiously, that view was repeated today by the Financial Secretary. I suppose that, in their view, the Finance Bill is not really important or significant—it has just 50 or so clauses, so they might as well guillotine it. Have the right hon. and hon. Ladies no concept of the importance of the complexity of legislation? If not, it is worrying indeed that the Leader of the House is seeking to modernise the procedures of the House in order to improve scrutiny.

It can have been only with extreme reluctance that the Government decided that they needed to impose a guillotine. We know what they think about the use of guillotines. When in opposition, the present Home Secretary said: The timetable motion is an abuse of power. No one can deny the wish of a Government to secure progress for their business, but that must be balanced against the need for adequate debate and discussion of a measure … Guillotines can be justified only where an Opposition have filibustered a Bill, where they have refused all reasonable suggestions to agree a timetable, or where there is no possibility of the Government getting their business through with reasonable speed without a guillotine."—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 757.] In the case of this Bill, there has been no filibustering and no refusal to agree a timetable, so why impose a guillotine? Clearly, one reason is the Government's incompetence. In just eight short weeks, they have demonstrated that management of the work of the House is beyond their ability. Given their contempt for the parliamentary process and their desire to make announcements, put on stunts, produce soundbites and organise photo opportunities—all outside the House—that is hardly surprising.

What is—or at least should be—surprising is that what the Government say about the importance of consensus, consultation and partnership is contradicted by what they do in practice. Consider what the Leader of the House said about the legislative process in her memorandum on the modernisation of the House: The quality of legislation can often be improved by consultation with informed opinion on both the substance and the drafting of legislative proposals. We learned last week that, because it is short, the right hon. Lady thinks that the Bill is not that important; but even she should be able to perceive that its measures are complex. Even she, given the clearly expressed views in her own memorandum, should be able to see that it is precisely measures such as these that would benefit from the kind of consultation with informed opinion that she herself describes.

Perhaps I can make the right hon. and hon. Ladies understand, although that is sometimes a little difficult to do. Yes, the Government did agree to extend time for debate in the House and, yes, the Committee stage will extend over a number of days, but in this instance the point is that the Government's guillotine motion will give only 12 working days between the publication of the draft Bill—and that agreed only as a result of our representations—and the end of the Committee stage.

It is precisely that period, when the Bill has been published, that the financial institutions, the business community and other interests use to make their valuable input into the legislation and all in the interests of better law. That is the point.

It is indeed ironic that it is today that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced—to a press conference, I expect; certainly not to the House—the setting up at taxpayers' expense of vast focus groups to scrutinise Government legislation and give reaction to Government policy. I thought that that was what Parliament was for. For business and financial institutions, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill certainly performs that function.

In oral questions on 3 July, the House was treated to a patronising lecturette from the President of the Board of Trade on the importance she attaches—now—to partnership with business. We learned: Competitiveness must be improved by a partnership between government and business."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 413.] Quite so. Some of us on the Conservative Benches have been saying that for some time. All conversions are welcome, but I wonder how that particular change of view can be served by the Government's deliberate curtailment of business input into the Budget. What kind of partnership is that?

There is no problem among Conservative Members about the Government's stated desire to improve the quality of legislation and the openness and accountability of the workings of government. Where we do have a problem—and so, increasingly, do the public—lies in the fact that what the right hon. and hon. Ladies and their Government say bears no relation to what they do.

A more striking example of that than today's motion would be hard to find. Unlike the Ministers—and despite the fact that it is short—we do consider the proposals of the Finance Bill to be important. They propose 17 tax rises. They propose an attack on savings and pensions. They propose an attack—as yet unadmitted and uncosted, but nevertheless an attack—on local government spending. Worst of all, they threaten the flourishing economic inheritance handed to the Government by the previous Government—just ask any mortgage payer.

The Government have a large majority. Clearly they can force through any measure they wish, they can decide to curtail consultation time with companies and organisations outside this House, and they can hide behind their mandate. However, a responsible Government would not allow that to happen—they would recognise that the very size of their majority imposes a responsibility to ensure that all views are heard. They might even consider practising what they so piously preach, and Ministers might even begin to answer questions with a few facts, instead of using a variation on the theme, "We won the election—so what?" That was breathtakingly illustrated, yet again, by the Financial Secretary today.

There is no need for a guillotine motion. The Government have not tried to discuss an alternative way to proceed, and they thereby give the lie to their vaunted claim of being a Government of partnership and consensus. They will and should be judged, not by what they say, but by what they do. We oppose the motion.

4.9 pm

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)

The Liberal Democrats oppose the motion. We do so for two broad reasons—the nature of the Budget and the Finance Bill, and the process of setting the timetable in the motion.

Our opposition to the timetable motion on the Finance Bill is based not simply on a view of whether the Budget is good or bad, although we have clear views about that. We believe that there are some mistaken proposals in it—the windfall tax, heavily headlined and hyped, and the pension tax, which has stealthily crept into the Bill without a great deal of previous advertisement. We believe that some proposals are missing from the Budget and the Finance Bill—proper funding for education being the most obvious example. The Liberal Democrats will argue those points in detail on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

However, our vote against the motion is based, not on the merits of the Budget, but on its size and complexity. Originally, the Government made out a case—which seems not to have been sustained this afternoon—that this was a mini-Budget, a comparatively insignificant Budget, which would harm no one and which could pass through the House without difficulty or trouble.

In our view, it is not a mini-Budget, but a major Budget. It is not a minor piece of legislation even if it is, as Finance Bills go, a comparatively short piece of legislation. It is not simply a case of tidying up the law and improving the legislative background of taxation; we are considering a major Bill, containing significant proposals that go well beyond those in the Labour manifesto.

I do not believe that Liberal Democrat Members would suggest that the mere fact that a measure appeared in the Liberal Democrat—or, for that matter, Labour—manifesto justified its bypassing effective scrutiny. However, there is at least a case for saying, of measures that were heralded in the manifesto, that there has been an opportunity for public debate, for consultation and for outside interests to gather their arguments and make representations beforehand.

However, the Bill also contains new proposals of great significance, regarding which there has been no such opportunity. The thoughtful and professional inputs that are vital if we are to pass legislation have not been forthcoming for those proposals, and there will not be time for outside bodies to make such inputs effectively.

In the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, we have devoted a good deal of attention to ways in which we can improve the law-making process and ensure that law is well drafted, error-free and capable of implementation. I noticed that, when the Minister introduced the motion, she repeatedly mentioned the need for certainty. Well, we shall have certainty. We can have the certainty that legislation will not be well drafted, will not be error-free and will not be capable of implementation without subsequent revision.

I am sure that many Labour Members will recognise that point. The biggest amender of Government legislation in the previous Parliament was the Government. Time after time, they had to return to the House simply because they did not get it right the first time. To Labour Members who say, "We were guillotined often enough, so it is their turn now," I say from the security of the Liberal Democrat Benches that two wrongs do not make a right.

Our second broad reason for opposing the motion is to challenge the process that we are being asked to use this afternoon. Within the next fortnight, the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, of which I am a member, will produce a report containing all-party proposals on how this issue can be dealt with during this Parliament. The report could be a landmark in improving procedures of the House and the quality and effectiveness of decisions.

It is at best clumsy and insensitive to bring a proposal of this sort before the House; at worst, it is cynical and disruptive, as it risks damaging the all-party consensus on progress. Ironically, as the shadow Leader of the House said, one of the events that may be delayed by this afternoon's debate is the next meeting, later this evening, of the Select Committee on modernisation of procedures. It brings into question just how committed the Government are to seeing genuine improvements in the House's effectiveness in dealing with legislation.

The Government should have forsworn the timetabling of legislation until the Select Committee's report was before the House, so that those newly agreed procedures could be brought into effect where needed. It is sad that on this occasion new Labour has not meant new procedures.

The Liberal Democrats will oppose the motion because the Finance Bill is too big, too complex and too under-rehearsed to be pushed through the House in this way. Moreover, the timetabling of any legislation should take advantage of the Select Committee's immediately forthcoming report, which will give us an all-party basis for tackling those issues in the future.

4.16 pm

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

There have already been two eloquent speeches from the Opposition Benches on this matter; mine will not have the same characteristic, but some things badly need saying.

On the history of the matter, the Leader of the House, who is not in the Chamber, announced at business questions on 3 July that the six-day delay between publication of the Finance Bill and Second Reading would be consistent with precedent and that the gap would be the same as it was in 1983–84 and 1987–88. She said that the Bill would be published in draft, to ensure that there was a six-day delay on this occasion also. I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. I expected that she would be, so I did not warn her that I would allude to her speech. I would not remotely accuse her of suppressio veri, but there is a touch of suggestio falsi about her answer.

In 1983 and 1987, exactly the same party as had called the election was returned to office. The Finance Bill had been taken before the election; the parts that the then Opposition were prepared to accept had been taken beforehand. In June and July of those two years, we took after the election the two parts of the Finance Bill that the then Opposition had not been prepared to give us before the election. We thus returned to Parliament with the wording of the Finance Bill entirely familiar to the whole House, because we had been debating it before the election. To treat those examples of six-day gaps as satisfactory precedents for a six-day gap on this occasion seems mildly improper.

I have given the respective dates. It so happens that in 1987, there were only five days between publication of the Finance Bill and Second Reading. I acknowledge that as a fair point, just to show that I am prepared to play by the rules.

I was not a Treasury Minister in 1983 but I was in 1987, and I recall extremely vividly the remaining stages of that year's Finance Bill, which were taken in their entirety by the present Prime Minister from the Opposition Benches. With the exception of one speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in the early part of the Bill's remaining stages, the present Prime Minister took the whole of the Committee stage alone. It was a remarkable tour de force. However, one could argue that the measure that we debated in the summer of 1987 was not as complicated or as controversial—in so far as the present Prime Minister felt able to carry the entire Opposition case by himself, clause after clause—as the one that we are considering today.

During business questions on 10 July—a week after the original announcement by the Leader of the House about the gap between publication and Second Reading—I said that, until we saw the detail of the Government's guillotine motion, we were dealing with shadows. I pointed out also that, judging by the Leader of the House's general outline of the timing for the rest of the Bill, we would probably see a profound acceleration in lapsed time. That would necessitate the Finance Bill Committee's sitting, not on alternate days—as it has done historically—but day after day. That would create complications in terms of tabling amendments and for those hon. Members who were conducting the opposition to the Bill. They would have to attend throughout all Committee meetings, and therefore could not consult simultaneously.

The Leader of the House did not respond to my points—although she reiterated how much notice had been given between publication of the draft Bill and Second Reading. I am not complaining about the Government's treating the Opposition with arrogance—that is their business. Perhaps they will pay a price for it in the fulness of time: the laws of hubris and nemesis have not been prorogued simply because there is a new Labour Government. However, like several commentators over the weekend, I am concerned for the taxpayers: these are complex issues.

The Financial Secretary sought to justify the accelerated timetable by claiming that, as all the measures were in the manifesto, it was necessary to translate them into law at the earliest opportunity. I have said before in another context that, in 120 hours spent canvassing on the streets of my constituency, not a single person mentioned a new strategic authority for Greater London. No doubt the Financial Secretary will claim that, because the proposal is in the manifesto, the nation voted for it specifically, directly and consciously.

I shall not labour the point—it is often argued that, if proposals are in the party manifesto, they are part of the programme. However, the advance corporation tax proposal was not in the manifesto and nor, to the best of my knowledge—the Paymaster General may correct me on this point—were foreign income dividends. Therefore, we must deal with matters that we first sighted when the Budget was introduced a short time ago. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked the Financial Secretary a specific question, which she has not answered. Therefore, I shall return to that subject before I sit down.

Taxpayers and their advisers frequently complained about complex legislation, such as the Finance Bill, when the Conservative party was in government. They were unhappy about the complexity of such legislation. I think that the Government will test the patience and the good will of those taxpayers and advisers if they adopt an accelerated programme for measures of this sort.

I shall give an example from the previous Government's Finance Bill of an appropriate legislative timetable. Those on the Government Front Bench will remember the proposition in clause 37 of the previous Finance Bill, regarding value added tax on property. In the early part of December, I was alerted to the fact that, although people understood the Government's intentions, the clause, as drafted, would be extremely cruel to those who were obeying the law and would not exact any penalty on those who were not. In the interests of natural justice, there was a case for redressing the balance.

I remember writing to major property companies about the problem before Christmas last year, and I embarked on consultation with them in January this year. The British Property Federation and I discussed the matter with the then Exchequer Secretary, Mr. Oppenheim. He assured us that the Government recognised the force of our arguments, but conceded that it was a complex matter, which would be extremely difficult to put right.

I had a further meeting with the Exchequer Secretary on 5 February—almost two months after the Budget itself—when he spoke words to this effect, "There is no way in which we can unravel this in time for Committee, but we are working on it. Customs and Excise is working with the advisers to the British Property Federation. If a satisfactory solution can be adopted, we shall adopt it, but we do not at the moment have such a solution. We are testing such solutions to destruction."

I was quite clear that the Government were not going to produce a solution in Committee. They did not even produce a solution on Report. They eventually produced an agreed solution, which was accepted in the House of Lords on 19 March—three months after the first correspondence that I had received from my constituents. Everybody agreed that the outcome was wholly satisfactory: that by patient unravelling work, we had come up with a solution that achieved what the Government wanted to achieve and which was not opposed by the then Opposition, who agreed that it was important that we should carry the proposal through. However, it took three months to find a form of words that everybody was satisfied would achieve the Government's objective without punishing innocent people. One could not accelerate that three-month period, but Ministers on the Treasury Bench are seeking to impose this Bill on us in a very short time.

After the election, there were rumours that the Budget would be announced on 10 June. For whatever reason, the Government were not able to have the Budget on that date. That is their business, not mine or that of the House. If they had announced their Budget on 10 June, we would not have had the problem that we have today, because there would have been plenty of time. Therefore, the Government deserve some criticism for potential mismanagement of the timetable.

The Government's new timing for a Budget on 2 July was bound to create problems for everybody involved. I am talking not about the convenience of Members of Parliament—even Opposition Members of Parliament—but about taxpayers and their advisers. The Government are determined to get the Finance Bill through by the summer recess, and the Budget contains a new measure of which there had be no forewarning in the manifesto.

The Chief Secretary said on Second Reading that the previous Government had imposed 82 guillotines on 61 Bills. That is a perfectly reasonable statistic, but I notice that he did not identify how many had been imposed between the election victory in May 1979 and the House rising for the summer recess in July of that year, which is the best parallel case. I whipped one Bill in that period. We got it through in a perfectly amicable way. I remember whipping two more in 1979 and 1980, one of which was considered in Committee for 105 hours; the other was considered for 120 hours. There are problems of style in the way in which the Government are allocating time on a matter as complex as the one that we are addressing today.

The Financial Secretary, when replying during the Budget debate on 3 July, omitted to answer any of the reasonable, relevant and logical questions put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). When my hon. Friend said that he sensed that the Financial Secretary was about to sit down, she said that she was not, but that she would come to his points. She said that the Government were very much in favour of debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

I am bound to say that, so far, on the basis of the Financial Secretary's reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, the omens are not very encouraging. If we are going to deal with complex issues and the Financial Secretary is not prepared to answer questions, problems lie ahead.

I recognise the Financial Secretary's reference to the manifesto. There will, of course, be arguments about the Government's conduct of facets of the Bill, but the ones that particularly preoccupy the outside world are ACT and foreign income dividends. The Paymaster General may soon tell us what particular change of heart the Government have had on foreign income dividends. In trying to take through a Bill of this complexity in the brief time that they have allowed for it, the Government are demeaning themselves—sadly, they involve the rest of us in it as well—and Parliament in the eyes of the public.

4.29 pm

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

I have a little booklet with me which refers to the use of the guillotine since 1945. I have listened to many debates on guillotine motions in the past 27 years, and it is interesting to note that between 1945 and 1970–71, the year when I was first elected to this place, only about 20 guillotines were implemented.

When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was Prime Minister, he introduced a guillotine on the Bill that became the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The guillotine was introduced almost immediately after the Bill's inception, and we were outraged. About 40 of us stood in front of the Mace, although I do not know what effect that had. Our protest was not seen on television because the House was not then televised, and it was not even broadcast on "Yesterday in Parliament" because the programme did not exist.

Why were we so outraged by the use of the guillotine? The answer is that it was not the thing to do. The then Tory Government had a majority of about 40 and I do not think that any Conservative Members were likely to rebel. Most of us thought that the introduction of a guillotine should not happen. That attitude was par for the course in those days: "If there is a guillotine, oppose it." We had not been used to them.

The Industrial Relations Bill became an Act—in other words, the guillotine worked—but then finished up on the back boiler because four dockers would not observe its edicts: the Official Solicitor had to go to Pentonville to bail them out and purge their contempt. What a great Act of Parliament that was; I thought, "Well done—there's your guillotine for you." I felt fortified by the outcome. We voted against the guillotine motion and a discredited Act was then got rid of by the Prime Minister who introduced it. I thought that that justified the rejection of guillotines.

The Industrial Relations Bill was followed by the Housing Finance Bill, also in 1971. I was a member of the Committee that considered that Bill for about six months. There was a stage when we never left the Committee Room for five successive days. Tony Crosland was that confused one night that he went home in his carpet slippers. We used to meet night after night. After a long time in Committee, that measure was guillotined. Again we were outraged and voted accordingly. I think that it is fair to say that from then on guillotines were used much more frequently than ever before. The booklet to which I have referred makes that pretty clear.

We may as well admit that over the past 10 years or so the use of the guillotine was so widespread that the previous Tory Government came to use it for almost anything, and I must say that my outrage has diminished: I realise that almost everyone is walking down a different set of rails—rails which are clear to anyone who wants to see them. The Government people vote for a guillotine and the Opposition vote agin it. With the rare exception of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I think that he has been in the Lobby with me on odd occasions, but I do not think there has been anyone else from his party—the outcome can more or less be forecast.

The much-vaunted guillotine, which it is said has undermined this wonderful Mother of Parliaments and all the rest of it over the past 10 to 15 years, has done nothing of the kind. I have to admit that, because I have watched and taken part in all those debates and votes. Frankly, if the Prime Minister had given me the job of Leader of the House and I had been in charge of proceedings, I would not have introduced this guillotine motion—not as a matter of principle, because I do not think that the principle is as evident as it used to be, but for the simple reason that we are already in July and we all know that Tory Members will not want to be sitting in Parliament in August. I would have said, "We'll drive them into August, and we'll finish in time."

I would not have bothered with the guillotine. The chances are that the Tories would not have gone anywhere near 12 August when the grouse shooting season starts. They would not have dared—not after the big rally they had last week in Hyde park attended by the Leader of the Opposition. He is on a zero-hour contract. All Tories believe in zero-hour contracts, but they are taking it a bit too far when they give the Leader of the Opposition one—I think it is called "Waiting for Portillo". Given the Tories' problems, I would have carried on. I am not making a song and dance about it, but that would have been my instinct. The Tories are in a right old mess and there are only 164 of them. The Liberal Democrats will join them in the Lobby—they will never be in government and will never have to wield a guillotine, so we know what they will do—but they will want to trot off on their holidays, too.

When I was in the Table Office last week, I heard Tory Members inquiring about the summer recess; they had already asked the bobbies, because the bobbies get to know first, but they were still not sure. The Tories were in the Chamber on Thursday afternoon when the recess was announced, and now they are shouting and bawling about the guillotine when we all know that they have booked their holidays for August. It has become a bit of a farce.

Mr. Brooke

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I was not one of the people in the Table Office when he had those various conversations? If he wishes to sit throughout the whole of August, I will be very happy to sit with him.

Mr. Skinner

I have news for the right hon. Gentleman: I shall be here. I have no problem with that: I have to come in every day to establish my working-class credentials. One can easily become middle class, so clocking on the way I used to do is important. I would be happy to come in, but the right hon. Gentleman and I would not do a great deal: he would be singing Clementine and all his colleagues would have gone to their new outpost in Sardinia, where the ex-Prime Minister went.

The document I have with me tells it all. What is more, something significant happened in the previous Parliament: we had the Jopling recommendations. For the benefit of new Members, I will explain what that meant. It meant that opposition would never again be like it used to be. Various changes that had nothing to do with guillotines reduced the Opposition's power to undermine the Government. I will not go into all of them now, but we used to be able to keep the Government up all night during discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill. European Community orders went into Committee, and many other orders that we used to debate on the Floor of the House went into Committee unless we took special measures to prevent it.

At that time, the Tories were in power and had 329 Members. They were so arrogant that they believed that they would be in power for ever. With my old friend Bob Cryer, who died, I used to warn Tory Members that they would rue the day they passed the Jopling recommendations because it would give the green light to any in-coming Labour Government to guillotine almost everything and never mind "Erskine May". We warned the Tories, but although a few went into the Lobby with us late one night the number voting against the recommendations was miserly—only 40 or 50 hon. Members altogether. That is significant. I am not accusing those who are now Government Front Benchers of hypocrisy: they, too, went into the Lobby to vote in favour of the Jopling recommendations. Why was that? It was because they thought that they were going to win the election and they had an idea that they would be using the recommendations themselves.

Hon. Members can have their boring old debate if they like, and it will get even more boring as they go on. I can stand on principle for as long as I choose, but having listened to this debate about the guillotine for 27 years I observe that it ain't what it used to be. One thing that I cannot stand is hearing Tory Members who went racing through the Lobbies to cut debates short in the last Parliament now shouting and bawling and crying about a guillotine that even I believe allows the passage of many measures for which the people voted.

I admit that some measures in the Budget surprised me, but most of them were well canvassed. I talked about most of them on the street corners of every village in my constituency during the general election campaign. I do not feel put out about those proposals; that is not my objection to the guillotine. If I thought that the cause was so great, I would feel bound to follow my voice with my vote, but the Budget—which, as I say, was well canvassed—is not of that dimension. It is not like the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which went to the core of my being.

As is traditional, the Tories will carry the Liberal Democrats and the other ragtag and bobtail into the Lobby with them today. They will then send their constituents a newsletter—if they get around to it—saying how they stood up to the Government, but it does not add up to a row of beans.

Mr. Viggers

The hon. Gentleman, as always, is true to himself. I have heard him talk on this subject before, and he has said the same on those occasions. But did he ever in his wildest dreams imagine that he would be sitting on the Government side of the House with so many silent, supine supporters behind him?

Mr. Skinner

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I said before the election. The last Prime Minister would not listen when I said, "Next time you will be sitting in my seat—I am keeping it warm for you." As the hon. Gentleman has provoked me, I will add that I did not expect there to be 418 Labour Members of Parliament.

I acknowledge that some of those Labour Members are brand new. As naturally as night follows day, they must look to see what the leadership is doing. I have not yet drawn any of them into my corral. I have worked out that only about 100 will be given jobs when the Prime Minister carries out his periodic reshuffle, so it is conceivable that some of them will decide that they are not about to get on to the Front Bench and will start stretching their limbs. I cannot be sure about that, but one thing is certain: I know what those hon. Members will do tonight. They will vote for the motion because they want to get the Bill on to the statute book.

The Tories, meanwhile, will have to go through the ritual: one of them will do so on principle, while the rest will do so as a matter of course. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) was recently promoted to the Front Bench. He never had a chance under Thatcher—she would not give him anything—but now, after 27 years in Parliament, he has made it at last: he has become the deputy to the deputy to the deputy shadow spokesman, but he knows as well as I do that the same ritual has taken place throughout the last few Parliaments. Hon. Members must do what they have to do, but they must not expect me to believe that they are engaged in some great principled fight.

4.45 pm

Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)

I am sorry that 28 years of grousing by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—not just before 12 August—has undermined his confidence in some of the principles that he has espoused so freely both to and on behalf of his constituents.

I oppose the guillotine. This is no playing to the gallery; the hon. Member for Bolsover was honestly opposed to guillotines, and I oppose them as a matter of principle. First, they are a denial of freedom of speech; secondly, they are a denial of the representative function; thirdly, they are the supreme instance of the Government's control over the House of Commons. That is why many people have often reflected that guillotines undermine the esteem in which the House is held, and that each of us as a representative is less able to express honestly his or her views about legislation.

I congratulate the Treasury Front Bench. I cannot recall ever before seeing the entire team in the Chamber during a debate on a guillotine motion. It is important that they should all attend, as this is a serious step for the House of Commons.

Several aspects of the guillotine worry me. First, all the instances given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), were very poor. The hon. Member for Bolsover and I cried foul to the former Government over such instances for many years, and I therefore would not pray them in aid. There must be merit in the debate itself, but the Financial Secretary was unable to adduce any dignified and honourable arguments to support her contention.

I have a greater worry, however. Many thinking Members of Parliament were elected on 1 May, and in fulfilling their representative function they will have to reflect the views both of their constituents and of their local authorities. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked where the change in the tax position of pension funds appeared in the Labour party manifesto, but no answer was given. I understand the difficulty of giving an answer, but to predicate an argument on such a flimsy basis as that used by the Financial Secretary does not assist in any way.

I have said that I oppose guillotines. Looking at what happened over the course of the past five general elections, I noted that in 1979 it took the then Conservative Government all of six months to impose a guillotine on the Bill that became the Education Act 1980. The guillotine was imposed while the Bill was in Standing Committee. After the 1983 election, it took the then Conservative Government no more than five months to impose a guillotine on the second telecommunications privatisation Bill, which became the Telecommunications Act 1984, also as a consequence of debate in Standing Committee. In 1987, it took the then Government eight months to impose a guillotine on the Bill that became the Education Reform Act 1988—again as a consequence of debate in Standing Committee. In 1992, it took the Government seven months to guillotine the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on Report. I mention that because the Financial Secretary seemed to think that there was some distinction between types of Bill.

Less than three weeks after the Queen's Speech the new Labour Government moved to impose a guillotine on the referendums Bill for Scotland and Wales. No one disputes that that is a major constitutional issue that will have repercussions—we cannot yet weigh up what they will be because we have not seen the substance of the legislation—but the course on which the Government have embarked is sensitive and tendentious; it requires great consideration and deliberation by the House, and every hon. Member is entitled to contribute to that debate.

Within eight weeks of being elected, the Government are now imposing a guillotine on the Finance Bill. The historic reason for the House coming into being was to express consent and acquiescence. Hon. Members who have been in previous Parliaments will know that I have always said that the House's principal function is to attest to the consent or acquiescence of those who have sent us here to represent them. After all, we are making laws with penalties for those who fail to uphold them. Our fellow citizens could be sent to prison as a consequence of their failure to attend to the laws that we pass. That means that there is a solemn duty upon us. Can we honestly attest that our laws will be borne? That is the prime reason for hon. Members having a purchase on our debates. However humble or new we are, it is important for us to be able to contribute to debates.

I did not see the pensions issue coming and I could not weigh it up appropriately on Budget day. As we reflect on these matters and as others with more expert understanding of the complexity of the detail examine them—in such matters the devil is always in the detail—it will be clear that they have will have considerable consequences for my local authority and for individual pension builders among my constituents. This important issue will have ramifications for local authority taxation in the coming years because authorities may have to make up a shortfall. I do not know whether what I am saying about the detail is correct, but I know that we shall find out by the process of legitimate debate in the House. By some majestic divination, the Government have decided that that will require a little over two hours and 32 minutes.

There is a problem with a Government setting out what they think are the priorities in Bills. I have seen that often because there were almost 60 such Bills under Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), whose Government started with a heavy drumbeat of guillotines. By 1992, unfortunately, the option of guillotines was taken out of the then Government's hands because their majority was not large enough.

We often do not know where the hidden weight of an argument lies until there is a contribution from the least expected quarter of the House. Guillotine motions are designed to prevent that. The House should reflect on the most recent guillotine motion, relating to legislation for Scotland and Wales, and note its careful crafting. It was designed to prevent the House from debating some of the specific issues relating to it. That is not a denial of the Government's mandate in Scotland: it is the outcome of the guillotine which will diminish the validity of the Government's mandate. The Lords have amended the Bill, and so far the Government have not imposed a guillotine on the debate on Lords amendments.

These are important issues, and there is a distinction between the Executive and their supporters in the House. A large number of intelligent hon. Members were unexpectedly elected and many of them cannot reasonably expect to hold their seats if, in the traditional sense, a better equilibrium is restored at a future election. What will have been their contribution to the passage of Bills and to other business if they see their only role as that of saying "Hallelujah" to every measure presented by the Treasury Bench?

On the Treasury Bench there are seasoned right hon. and hon. Members who have felt the indignity that I am expressing because they suffered the 60 guillotines that we imposed and they know how destructive that can be to rational and sensible debate. They also know that that was part of the process which slowly unwound the Conservative Cabinet's hegemony over public sentiment. We looked arrogant in the past—as though there were no lessons to learn and no need to justify any of our arguments—but the contempt that was expressed at that time turned round and bit us and there was a wipeout on 1 May.

Mr. Skinner

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that we shall have reached that point with two guillotines. Does he accept that his view varied on some of the 60 guillotine motions that were accepted, and that although he could not stomach some of them, he accepted many? Although the hon. Gentleman and I would be on similar ground in other circumstances, there are varying ways of contemplating legislation and we have to decide instinctively about the measure that is before us. My consideration of this measure is not the same as that of the hon. Gentleman, but he will agree that occasionally one can accept some motions—as he did from among the 60 that he mentioned—while others are not acceptable.

Mr. Shepherd

By about 1987 I had discerned that guillotines had become an instrument of government and that they were the way in which the Executive, without the foo-fah of proper parliamentary debate, intended to engage with the elected representatives of the British people. Thereafter, I would not support a guillotine or the legislation that depended upon it. This is the first time that I have said that in the House, but hon. Members will find that my voting record bears me out. Such motions are a denial of the very function and purpose of this place.

Governments say, "We have important programmes, the House is busy and we have a mandate." When one takes a lease on a building, whether it is a rented house or work premises, one looks at the detail of the lease to see whether there are clauses within it that are too onerous to bear. Such is the duty of the House. It must attest—and honourable, intelligent Labour Members must be sure—that the matter can and will be borne and will not undermine the standing of the House.

I understand the frustration that was felt by Labour Front Benchers when they were in opposition, and the same Opposition frustration is evident today. In part response to the hon. Member for Bolsover I say that there is a qualitative difference between the sort of legislation that the Government have decided to embark upon and that which he mentioned. There is no doubt that their first measure is solemn and constitutional because it is about the government of these islands. It is not the ridiculous Dangerous Dogs Bill, about which it was said that all stages had to be taken in one day, thanks to my right hon. Friend Lord Baker.

The motion before us today relates to the Finance Bill, which deals with the taxation of the people of these nations. It deserves proper scrutiny, but there is to be a guillotine before the Bill has even been in Committee. I remind the House of what I have emphasised time and again—that the balance of an argument or the devil in the detail sometimes comes out of the wood and surprises us. To show the extent to which the Executive is seeking to control the House and its Members under some fanciful doctrine of the mandate I will quote from a simple part of the motion. Under the heading "Dilatory Motions" it states: No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith. I ask hon. Members to think about that. It is a fairly ordinary clause, but it affirms that this is a matter for the Executive and that hon. Members will take it on the terms presented by the Executive.

If I have stepped widely in the debate, I apologise, but the arguments are profound. Within three weeks of the Government coming into office there was a guillotine motion on a constitutional measure, and within eight weeks a guillotine motion on a Finance Bill. That is inappropriate. It will—I have said this before—slowly trickle out to people that there is an extraordinary presumption and arrogance, which is so familiar to them. Conservative Members should know why we lost the election on 1 May. Labour Members who support the Government motion should remember that the very arguments that were adduced against us slowly build up: the silt fills the bottom of the jar until people realise that arrogance is a feature of Whitehall and of the Executive. It is the function of the House of Commons to represent and stand up for the people who elected us.

5 pm

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

This is a special occasion. It is the first time in 23 years that I have wanted to speak in a debate on a timetable motion. As a parliamentary private secretary at the Treasury, not as a Minister, I daily heard the truism that what appears initially to be a good Budget frequently turns out to be a bad one, and what appears to be a harsh Budget often turns out to be a very good one. That is not just a truism; it is true.

Another truism is also true: there is no such thing as an entirely favourable Budget measure. The Chancellor cannot please everyone. When he said that, for the greater good of mankind and of the United Kingdom population in particular, he would diminish excise duty on lead-free petrol, he thereby drove out of business a company whose special product was the lead additive in petrol. A Chancellor cannot say that a measure is universally good.

The Budget contains some exceptionally complicated measures. They derive mainly from the system of corporation tax, including advance corporation tax. To great acclamation, the Chancellor said that he would cut the basic rate of corporation tax from 33 per cent. to 31 per cent. That will benefit company tax payers by £1,950 million. In abolishing tax credits by a comparative sleight of hand, however, he raised £5,400 million a year in the longer term, a much larger amount. The implications of that will take some time to sink in.

In an article on international bonds in today's Financial Times, Krishna Guha states: 'This is going to be a huge supporter for the bond market, and for the very long end in particular,' says Mr. Andrew Roberts, head of bond strategy at UBS. But it is too early to say how or when it will affect the market. 'If anyone tells you they know, they are lying,' he says. Many companies will have to increase pension contributions to make up for the cost to their pension funds. Valued on the basis of the present value of their future income, pension funds have in effect suffered a revaluation loss of 15 to 20 per cent. 'Mature funds will suffer more than small ones,' says Mr. Alan Clifton, managing director of Commercial Union Investment Managers. 'Pension funds such as British Steel or ICI will be the main sufferers.' I cannot imagine that it is directly relevant, but I should say that I am the chairman of the trustees of the Corporation of Lloyd's pension fund, which in this category would rate as a small pension fund. I am not a beneficiary in any way; I am merely the chairman.

The implications of the Budget changes were foreseen. The Financial Times Lex column on 12 May said that it expected the Chancellor to turn to fundraising: If Britain's new chancellor can reinvent monetary policy-making in just a few days, what havoc might his promised review of corporate taxes wreak? The most obvious potential victim is about as difficult to spot as an elephant in the chancellor's bedroom: Britain's much-loved advance corporation tax (ACT) credit on dividends. Not only does this cost the exchequer some £5bn a year. It also gives pension funds a distorted incentive to prefer dividends over reinvested earnings. So its life expectancy does not look great. But remember: the chancellor promises a review 'to promote greater long-term investment'. Simply cutting the ACT credit would do no such thing. On the contrary, companies would end up shouldering most of the burden and the cost of capital would rise. It will take time for the Budget's implications to sink in. The Financial Times, The Economist and other expert commentators have expressed their views. Professional bodies and trade associations will inform their members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Budget's effect on local government pension funds. It has taken some time for local government pension funds, for advisers to the funds and for local councillors to realise that it may be necessary to raise council tax to pay the contribution required by the Government. It will take a long time for individual business men and women and pensioners to make their views known.

So far, I have received no representations about the Budget, but I am certain that I will. When I receive representations from my constituents, I am sure that they will say, "I had no idea that the Budget was going to affect my pension fund to the extent that it has. I was expecting the pension fund to be enhanced by future benefits." Someone might write to me and say, "I am a trustee of a small pension fund. I did not realise that we would have to increase contributions by taking money from the shareholders' funds or by taking money from employees."

People have not realised the extent to which the proposals will affect them. During his Budget speech, the Chancellor said lightly that many pension funds were in surplus. It is true that about half the pension funds with the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd. are in surplus, but those that are not will need contributions from employees or from company funds. People with personal pension funds have planned to retire at a certain level of income. They will now have to suffer a lower pension or make higher contributions to their pension fund than they had expected.

When people realise the extent to which they have been disadvantaged, they will be resentful and will think less of the Labour Government, of the Chancellor and, I am afraid, of Parliament because they will notice that we allowed the proposal to be passed without adequate scrutiny.

I do not regret the lack of debating time on the Floor of the House or in Committee. My complaint is that the entire process, from the Budget through to Third Reading, will be so compressed that experts outside will not have an opportunity to express their views, and ordinary constituents, voters, business people and pensioners will not have a chance to assess the effect that this damaging and tax-raising Budget will have on them.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made much of the need for certainty as against uncertainty. The Paymaster General is on the Front Bench. I hope that he will reply to the debate so that he might clarify one point. He said: We are also looking sympathetically at the position of UK-based groups with a substantial amount of foreign income."—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 586.] I have raised this point twice before on the Floor of the House, but the Paymaster General was not replying then. As he will reply today, I hope that he will clarify what he meant by those remarks. Is it that a Budget measure is likely to be changed? If so, we should be told earlier rather than later. We do not want to be told during the summer recess when Parliament is not sitting.

The guillotine is symptomatic of the Government's attitude to their own party and to Parliament. No Labour Member, other than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), has sought to speak in this debate. It is clear that the Government are interested in using their massive majority more to push through legislation than to scrutinise it. It is the same choreographed response as we see during Prime Minister's questions, when someone is selected—we know not how or why—to emerge from the chorus line and have a speaking part. It is a contempt of Parliament.

Despite all that, I am quite cheerful at the moment. Nothing can eradicate the past 18 years of good government and good measures. It appears that the new Government will leave the main framework of the Conservative improvements in place. It gives me pleasure to see the Government losing the plot at such an early stage.

The Times published a letter today from Mr. Brian Lynch, who said: Sir, Picket lines again, inflation up, interest rates up, more troops in Ulster, Ken Livingstone back in the limelight. Didn't take long, did it?

5.11 pm

Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire)

This debate may go down in history as the one in which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—confessed that he was well on the way to becoming an establishment man. No doubt he will be a noisy establishment man. He weaseled his way out of his past objection on principle to guillotines by saying that guillotines were not what they used to be, that they did not matter today and that they are from the past.

In a way, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I cannot work up a lather, either synthetic or genuine, over a timetable for a parliamentary Bill. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon of Government to impose a timetable for the effective discussion of a Bill. I think that all Bills should be timetabled. That means the sensible division of a Bill so that those parts can be discussed in great detail, but are not held up by filibustering.

The hon. Member for Bolsover was nostalgic when he recalled the filibusters on the Industrial Relations Bill. I, too, can recall a few filibusters. One or two hon. Members regard filibusters in the way that war veterans regard being asked by their children, "What did you do in the war, Daddy?" Members of Parliament say, "I remember the great fluoride debate. I remember being upstairs in the telecommunications Committee for over 100 hours on three separate Committee stages." I, too, remember those occasions. In the middle of those filibusters, my overwhelming ambition was to be at home, tucked up in bed while other people wasted their time.

I have searched my memory, but I cannot think of a single case of filibustering having changed the intended outcome. Therefore, I believe in the sensible timetabling of Bills. Of course, the key word is "sensible". The proposed timetable is not sensible—it is truncated and far too short. I am not saying that the time for debate should be four or five times longer, but there are one or two aspects that need attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to some of the points that would need to be drawn out.

Why is the procedure truncated? I am glad to note that the Chancellor has arrived in the Chamber. The Government have cocked it up—perhaps that is not a delicate thing to say. Before the Budget, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were macho men, going around saying, "We have got to hit the ground running." What better way to make their mark than a Budget that shows that they have their hands on the reins of power?

As the Chancellor has probably discovered, he cannot simply wander into the Treasury with a piece of A4 exercise paper bearing the words, "Can you give me a Budget in a week or two?" His original date would have allowed plenty of time for the Bill to complete its Committee stage, but it takes considerably longer than he expected to put through a Budget, especially in view of the need to ensure that anti-avoidance measures are in place.

I noted that the Chancellor muttered a few words about making anti-avoidance measures illegal. It is an interesting concept that he is trying to introduce into our law, and I welcome the opportunity to watch it develop over the years to come. The Treasury will have to spend month after month ensuring that they deliver and are not circumvented.

I would have liked a little more time to debate the Bill because I support certain of the Budget's proposals, some of which are quite sensible. I take an interest in the small business sector and I have spent most of my time in the House trying to promote it. That sector will grow and provide jobs for the future. It may even employ youngsters who are to go into some form of employment or training.

I agree with the proposal to increase the plant and equipment allowance from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., but I would have liked a little more time to define what is meant by plant and equipment. We do not want any more splurges, with companies buying typists' chairs and desks at the end of the financial year.

The proposal should focus on machine tools. As a Conservative Back Bencher and as a private individual, I have always argued that there should be a focus on machine tools. We should take a leaf out of the Japanese book. The Chancellor may find it interesting that the Japanese give small firms a machinery and machine tool grant for three years. For example, they target the grant on NCR machines to help small firms acquire the means of production.

I had hoped that the Budget would include a proposal to allow small firms to accumulate a nest egg of capital. It is all very well to reduce corporation tax from 23 to 21 per cent.—every little bit helps—but that is not enough. The person running the business will say to himself, "Do I pay the tax or do I pay it to myself as income?" I would have supported a measure, perhaps in the form of a bond or non-redeemable shares, that would keep the money in the business and give it a chance to grow. We are allowed personal allowances, so why should not companies have allowances? It could be an adjustment to the corporation tax—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the allocation of time, so it is not appropriate to go into the details of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Page

You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am so enthusiastic about the small business sector that I get carried away. In fact, I had finished my sales pitch on behalf of small businesses.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) asked what time would be available to discuss the impact of changes in advance corporation tax on charitable schemes. I declare an interest as I was the honorary treasurer of a large charity. I know what effect such measures can have on charities' incomes. Some charities have already been hit hard by the lottery, and I should have thought that some special allowance could be made in addition to the three years that has been allowed by the Chancellor—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)

It is seven years.

Mr. Page

Yes, seven years; such an allowance would enable charities to retain more of their income. The subject will be debated on the second day of the Committee of the whole House, but it should be allowed much more time. The United Kingdom has a tradition of giving and of generosity, and charities should have an opportunity to get their act together so that they can present a case and try to melt the Chancellor's stony heart.

I believe that Bills should be sensibly timetabled during a Parliament. Today's motion, however, is not sensible. It is far too rushed and we should be allowed more time for debate. The Budget's iniquities will not be properly debated under the timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport made the point that Budgets that are lauded to the heights on Budget day often turn out to be stinkers. The aroma of this Budget will linger in the nostrils of the British people—especially of those who will become pensioners—for years to come.

Mr. Viggers

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be prepared to take hon. Members into your confidence. Hon. Members know that those who wish to speak in debates may submit their name to the Speaker's Office and that, if they are lucky, they will be called by the Chair. Will you tell Opposition Members whether you have received any requests from Labour Members to speak? It seems extraordinary that Labour Members have not commented on such an important constitutional measure. Conservative Members have made some good speeches, and we have heard an excellent speech from a Liberal Democrat. I wonder whether something is distracting Labour Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been here quite a long time; he is well aware that that is not a genuine point of order for the Chair.

5.21 pm

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

I should, if I may, correct a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). There have been two speeches by Labour Members: one by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with which I shall deal shortly; and one by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree that there were only two speeches by Labour Members, although it is doubtful whether any speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover can be counted as a speech from the Government Benches. None the less, he made one, and he is a Labour Member.

I learnt only a few things from the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover, the first of which is that he is getting old. The second thing I learnt is that he has only three speeches in his parliamentary locker—today we heard either speech one, speech two or speech three—all of which we have heard before. The third thing that I learnt about him, which may be of some relief to the Paymaster General, is that—based on his discussion on August holiday arrangements with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—the hon. Member for Bolsover is deeply out of touch with the modern Conservative party, which, sadly, is no longer necessarily representative of the grouse-shooting classes. It is also quite clear that he will not be asked this summer to the Paymaster General's castle in Tuscany, but may spend a lonely summer holiday in this Palace.

The final thing that I learnt from the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover is that he does not object to guillotines when he agrees with the underlying legislation. When he objects to the underlying legislation, however, there is no more principled advocate of the arguments against imposing a guillotine. I should like to compare his speech with the purity and elegance of the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—which, within a few moments, encapsulated the evil of the motion that we are debating.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury moved the guillotine measure against the background of a Labour Government who have a huge majority that has allowed them to create a disgusting mixture of arrogance and lack of self-confidence. The lack of self-confidence has been evident in the dearth of speeches by Labour Members supporting the motion. They lack confidence and have not spoken because they do not understand that even bad arguments require support in the Chamber. If they are not prepared to support the Minister who moved the motion, what hope have we for the remainder of this Parliament?

The motion was moved also against a background in which one Labour Member, who is not in the Chamber, was overheard complaining that his sense of democracy was offended by the notion that any Opposition facing a Government majority of 177 should have the right to propose amendments to Government legislation. That is only an anecdote—I am sure that it is not a criticism that I could lay at the door of every Labour Member—but it does rather inform the way in which the new Labour Government exercise their authority over this legislature.

A point that has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is that this guillotine is not the first one proposed by the Government, although we are only six or eight weeks into this Parliament. He and I spoke for some little while in the debate on the Government's first guillotine, which was on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. On that occasion, we heard the same arguments—if they can be so described—from the Government. Both that Bill—which my hon. Friend rightly said was a major constitutional Bill—and the Finance Bill are major Bills. The Finance Bill has an equal if different significance.

The Finance Bill is already suffering from truncation, and the period between its Second Reading and Committee stage will be far shorter than that allowed for any previous Finance Bill. As Conservative Members have said, the time between a Finance Bill's Second Reading and its Committee stage is the very time when the financial services and pensions industry and those who will be affected by the Budget must lobby their Members of Parliament and the Treasury to explain the difficulties that they and the taxpaying public might suffer.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned some of his constituents who are in the property business and who wrote to him about an aspect of a previous Budget that dealt with property taxation. That was an extremely germane example of the value of a long period of consideration. No one will be allowed such a period of reflection on the Finance Bill. In passing this type of legislation, Ministers owe it to us all to reflect on what they are doing.

I will not say what I think of the speech made by the Financial Secretary. Nevertheless, she said that it was not her or the Government's fault that the Finance Bill and the Budget have been introduced one third or halfway through the financial year. No one asked the Government to introduce a Budget at any stage of the year, and no one asked them to delay their Budget from 10 June to 2 July. It is also no good for them to complain to us when we complain that they are so drastically cutting time to debate the Bill.

Another point that has not yet been mentioned but that is worthy of mention is that, in the other place, the same scrutiny does not occur on Finance Bills as occurs on other types of Government legislation. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) correctly said, in previous Parliaments, it has been a matter not only of Governments having to amend their own legislation but of the other place amending Government Bills, which it has done most effectively and in a rather more deliberative atmosphere. This Bill will not have such an advantage.

Ministers are fond of using the expression "the people's"—as in the people's money, the people's Government, the people's this and the people's that. The Government have proposed 17 tax rises to take more of the people's money, yet they are not prepared to allow the people's representatives adequately to discuss those proposals.

The few arguments offered by the Financial Secretary, who is temporarily absent, were as follows: first, she said that there was a need for certainty for the taxpayer; secondly, she said that the guillotine motion provided for better scrutiny of the Bill; and, finally, she said that there was adequate time. I think it was Humpty-Dumpty who said, "What I say it means is what it means," although I paraphrase inaccurately. The Financial Secretary was following his words closely when she sought to prove that adequate time had been allocated. The time available is wholly inadequate.

As for providing certainty for the taxpayer, if the Financial Secretary is concerned that old-age pensioners with heating bills to pay this winter need to know before the autumn what they will or will not be getting from the Government, surely it is open to her to sever that issue from the Finance Bill and legislate separately while we consider the other aspects of the Bill with greater care.

The Financial Secretary said that there was adequate time. One has only to read the table set out on page 852 of the Order Paper to see what that means in her view. On the first day, we have until 7 pm to deal with clause 1 which relates to the windfall tax. We all know that, even with the best will in the world, it is not often possible to start Committee stage deliberations on the Floor of the House at exactly 3.30 pm. It is therefore likely that there will be less than the requisite time to discuss the windfall tax. At 7 o'clock, we are to move on to discuss mortgage interest tax relief, dealt with in clause 15. That debate must be finished by 10 pm. There will no doubt be a Division at 7 pm, or shortly afterwards and, in view of the number of Members—659, of whom perhaps 640 will vote—we shall not start debating clause 15 until about 7.30 pm.

The following day, we debate clause 17 which deals with medical insurance, or the removal of tax relief on it, and we follow the same procedure. Also on the second day, we debate clause 19, which deals with pension funds and tax credits, for a little under two and a half hours.

Those debates cover four big subjects which deserve rather more than two and a half hours each—

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

That includes Front Benchers' contributions.

Mr. Garnier

As my hon. Friend so kindly reminds us from the Front Bench, that time includes Front Benchers' contributions.

It beggars belief that the Financial Secretary dares go to the Dispatch Box and describe as adequate the timetable set out on page 852 of the Order Paper. It also beggars belief that she seeks to give cogent reasons for anything when she singularly failed to answer a direct question that I asked her, and did so with a boldness that I could only salute as it passed by.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made the important point that, according to paragraph 7, dilatory motions can be moved only by a Minister of the Crown. It states: No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall he made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown". This is the legislature of the British public, but only a Minister of the Crown can tell us how to conduct ourselves. It is not only in paragraph 7 that we find such powers given by the great silent ranks of the new Labour party. Paragraph 5(2) states: No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member"— presumably, a Minister of the Crown— who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon. It is very kind of the Government to draft the motion in that way.

Paragraph 12(3) states: 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 or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order. First, only a Minister of the Crown can truncate the proceedings. Secondly, if he wishes to truncate proceedings further, he need not tell us that he is going to do so. I dare say that the statue of Cromwell outside this Palace is witnessing some changes—he must be smiling and enjoying the work of this Government as they become ever more as he used to be.

This will be a very bad period for Parliament. It started badly with the first guillotine—on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill—and is made worse by this shabby motion. Two huge Bills of great importance, one on the constitution and one on the way we raise our finances, are to be crushed into a timetable designed by a Government who do not have the confidence to allow us to debate the ideas that they did not have the confidence to put in their election manifesto. Before very long, the Government will learn that such conduct does not sit well with the British public.

5.35 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)

As a new Member, I have for several reasons found it educational to sit through all of this guillotine debate. First, it was a privilege to see a performance by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) live, as it were, having seen many previously through the media. It was educational not only for his performance which was, of course, inimitable but because of the interesting attitudes that lay behind what he said.

As I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, he felt passionately about the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and that it was therefore a constitutional monstrosity that it should have been guillotined. However, he does not care much one way or the other about the Budget, so, as he enters his declining years, he feels relaxed about voting for a guillotine motion on it. That is instructive for two reasons. First, the fact that he could not raise any enthusiasm for the Budget tells us a great deal about how it is going down with some Labour Back Benchers. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it shows a gap between rhetoric and reality. When a Member with such a distinguished and anti-establishment history as the hon. Member for Bolsover cannot bring himself to condemn a guillotine motion, one feels that the last fires of libertarianism within the Labour party are finally about to be extinguished. That is one of the lessons that was interesting to learn this afternoon.

The other lesson concerns the abject silence from every other nominal supporter of this shabby motion. On the day that Ministers are announcing the formation of a gimmicky people's panel of 5,000 people, which the Government are to use as an enlarged focus group on which to test all their legislation, it seems particularly ironic that this people's panel—the Parliament of Great Britain—should be so completely ignored and treated with contempt. If the Government are prepared, uniquely, to put a guillotine motion on the Finance Bill to the House in this way, the least tribute that they could pay to hon. Members and, indeed, to those who sent us here, is to put up a few people to defend the motion.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

Or even attend.

Mr. Green

The fact that they have not bothered to do so is the most serious sign yet in eight weeks of arrogant government of just how arrogant the Government really are and how little regard they pay to the House.

It was also instructive to listen to the Financial Secretary moving the guillotine motion. One should perhaps deal directly with some of what one could charitably call the arguments that she offered in support of it. The first was that, faced with this unnecessary Budget, taxpayers want certainty. That is patently absurd. To say that people need to be certain that their pensions will be less valuable, that they will have to pay the 17 tax rises and that their mortgage and medical insurance will become more expensive is genuinely worrying, suggesting that during the past eight weeks the Treasury has lost the ability even to come up with a plausible line. The Minister was clearly talking tosh and she knew that at the time.

The Minister's only other argument in favour of the guillotine motion was that it had been done before by previous Conservative Governments. The House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for so comprehensively blowing up that argument, proving that no similar guillotine has been imposed so soon after a Budget.

I urge the Government to learn the lessons of the past 18 years. They have spent 18 years criticising Conservative Governments. Perhaps one of their occasionally more justifiable criticisms was that rushed legislation is very likely to be bad legislation. Many of us have felt that. The most dangerous legislation to rush through—barely announced, certainly not analysed and not allowing for any consultation with outside bodies—is a Finance Bill. It is inevitably full of complex, technical issues that require detailed examination. It is certain that a Budget rushed through without proper consultation will prove to be a bad Budget for taxpayers and, in the end, for the Government.

The Government do not even have the excuse of the hysteria that has sometimes caused Governments to rush into ill-thought-out legislation. On occasion, the country has been seized by what feels like a moral panic, when there is a demand for action to which the Government have responded hastily and usually unwisely. That was not the case here. Nobody was demanding an early Budget from the Labour Government. Nobody would have objected if the Chancellor had arrived at No. 11 and the Treasury and said, "Well, we want to get on with it, but we think that it is sensible to think seriously about what we are going to do and carry on with the normal Budget timetable." There was no need for a July Budget and certainly no need for a Budget that is to be railroaded through the House with no proper examination.

We can dismiss the ostensible reasons that the Financial Secretary gave for the guillotine motion. What are the real reasons for the motion? The first is clearly that the Government are desperate to bring tax rises in as early as possible. They want to put taxes up now and put spending up later in the Parliament. They are determined to carry the tax rises through. Every month that they can bring them forward increases their revenue, taking yet more money out of the pockets of the British people. The increases in petrol duty and similar taxes will come into effect earlier than they would have done in a November Budget, allowing the Government to take more money from people, which will have a more damaging effect on the inflation rate and on all businesses that require motor transport.

The second reason is clearly that the Budget, like every other measure taken so far by the Government, is driven by the following day's headlines rather than by any long-term strategy. The most ridiculous claim so far made by the Government is that this is a Budget for the long term. Never has there been an Administration more driven by the short term. For the Government, the short term and the long term simply mean tomorrow morning's headlines. Nobody must be allowed to scrutinise the Budget properly, because that would reveal the ways in which it will unravel.

The Government are afraid not just of parliamentary scrutiny, as the guillotine motion shows, but, perhaps more seriously, of scrutiny by the many bodies outside Parliament that have expertise to bring to bear on the Budget process. It has already been observed during the debate that most of the amendments to Finance Bills in recent years have been introduced by the Government. Most of those changes are due to expert input from outside bodies that feel that they can contribute to good governance by responding to a Finance Bill and picking at its bones, telling the Government the unintended effects of certain clauses and how to write them in a different way. The guillotine motion will remove any possibility of those non-political expert outside bodies having a beneficial effect on the Budget.

Not only are the Government doing a disservice to the House and the electorate with the motion; they are doing a disservice to their Budget. They know that because of their approach and the speed with which they are putting the Budget through, they are making it even worse than it need be. The Government should do themselves a favour and not ram the Budget through in a way that is unnecessary and damaging to the British economy.

5.45 pm

Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I shall start by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, sadly, is not in his place. He told us that the Conservatives should not be allowed to protest at this extraordinary guillotine. He said that those who had supported the Jopling reforms did not have a leg to stand on, and should support all guillotines in all circumstances.

There are a number of new Conservative Members who were not around when the Jopling reforms were being passed. Lord Jopling, as he now is, was my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Westmorland and Lonsdale, so it is not surprising that I support the principle of the reforms that he introduced. However, they merely acknowledged—as we all do—that a Government, particularly one with a parliamentary majority as great as the current Government's, have the right to put their business through on a timetable if they so choose and if that is the prudent and sensible thing to do.

But why are the Government so desperate to bring forward a guillotine motion at such an early stage? I think that there are three reasons. The first is that, as we have already seen, the new Government do not think much of the House of Commons. Even though they have such a huge majority in this Chamber, they would rather that the House did not trouble the Executive much, if at all.

The Government are moving steadily and with ever-increasing speed to take power and influence away from this Chamber. They have halved the number of opportunities for hon. Members to question the Prime Minister. Almost their first step was to transfer from the Chamber one of the key economic levers—the ability to change interest rates. Not only did the Government not wait to bring legislation before the House; they did not even wait for the House to return so that a statement could be made to it. The Government's first act on the international stage transferred yet more power away from the House to our European partners and to the Commission in Brussels.

The guillotine motion is yet another example of an arrogant Government moving steadily to take power, influence and now even the right of debate away from the Chamber, because they want to take their decisions in their way. Those decisions will be made in Brussels or Whitehall—anywhere but here.

The second reason for the motion is that the Chancellor got his timing wrong. When the Government were preparing for the election, we were told that they were ready to take power—ready to hit the ground running. Almost as soon as the Prime Minister became leader of the Labour party, he started to issue calls for a general election. He said that the Labour party was ready to take office and to shape the destiny of the nation.

From 1994 to 1996, the then Opposition told us that the Government should make way for a new political party which knew exactly what it wanted to do and which would be able to implement all the required decisions instantly on taking office. Yet, when the Chancellor came into office, the initial press briefings which said that we could expect a Budget by the end of May slid into those that stated that we could expect one in June. We ended up with the Budget in early July. We are now having to accelerate the pace of debate on the Bill because the Chancellor could not meet his original deadline for the Budget.

Some of us may be a little understanding about that. We might be prepared to accept that a new Government coming into office would need time to prepare a radical Budget, but are such Budgets unprecedented?

There was a change of Government in 1979, and a Budget was introduced, but the circumstances were different from those that existed this year. The current Government knew exactly when the general election would be held, because, for more than a year, there had been speculation that 1 May would the likely date for general election. In 1979, the general election took place only because the previous Government lost a vote of confidence in the House. Suddenly, the nation was catapulted into a general election.

Yet Geoffrey Howe, now Lord Howe, was able to prepare and introduce a Budget within four weeks of that election result. It can hardly be said that that Budget was uncontroversial and simple—it included a dramatic change in the balance of taxation between income tax and value added tax. It also laid the framework for the medium-term financial strategy, as well as the ground work for 18 years of achievement.

That Budget was ready within four weeks of the election, but the present Government could not get their Budget ready within nine weeks of taking office. It has not been introduced simply to set the windfall tax, which the British people were invited to endorse in the ballot box on 1 May. If that had been the case, the Budget could have been introduced without delay; instead, it includes 17 separate tax increases, which breach every pledge made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor when they were in opposition. They needed time to prepare for those increases, which is why the Budget was late and why we will have to telescope debate.

Every stage of the Bill, from the announcement of the Budget through to the passage of the Finance Act, will be completed within the space of one month. That is quite extraordinary. That action is necessary because the Government are breaking their pledges and have been proved incompetent now that they are in charge of Treasury. They underestimated the time it would take to prepare a Budget.

The Government's actions are dictated by one part arrogance and one part incompetence, but there is another ingredient, which has been evident in the Chamber today—cowardice. The Government are afraid of debate.

Some of us have seen press reports in the past few weeks that the Minister without Portfolio has issued instructions to every Labour Member of Parliament to seize every opportunity available in the House and outside it to blacken the reputation of 18 years of Conservative government. They are under instruction to spread a new mythology through the land that 18 years of Conservative government have damaged the fabric of our nation.

Even though the Labour party has now had to accept so many of our policies, from council house sales to trade union reform, privatisation and the nuclear deterrent, the Minister without Portfolio has said that Labour Members must take every opportunity to attack the record of Lady Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

Where are those Labour Members? Have they seized the opportunity of the debate to attack the record of the previous Government? No, they have not. Have they even seized the opportunity of the debate to speak in support of their Government, their Budget or the guillotine? No, they have not. Throughout the debate, there have been far more Conservative Members present than Labour ones.

Legend has it that 418 Labour Members were elected on 1 May, but 410 of them have been notable by their absence throughout the debate. Where are they? Have they been let off by the Minister without Portfolio to act on the wonderful phrase that he allowed his spin doctors to spin around the Chamber—that they would be sent home to acquaint themselves with their constituents? Is that where the 410 have gone? Why is that troupe of Labour Members not present for this important debate? Why will their Government do anything and everything to deny them free speech in a proper debate on the Finance Bill?

The reason for that silence was spelt out by the hon. Member for Bolsover, who said that there are just 100 Front-Bench jobs that the Prime Minister can offer, while 418 people are competing for them. He said that, in due course, the other 318 Members may find that the attractions of the Front Bench will simply never be available to them—mathematically, it is impossible for all of them to get a job. The hon. Gentleman advised that they should listen to what he had to say, and suggested that they should follow him in being a little creative, inspirational and flexible around the margins of Labour policy. That is what those on the Labour Front Bench fear. They fear not what we might say in a proper debate on the Finance Bill, but what their own Back Benchers would say in a proper debate.

Today, we have seen that arrogance and incompetence plus cowardice means rushed legislation and the introduction of a guillotine at a far earlier stage than in the proceedings of any previous Government. That has been done to attempt to stifle debate in the House. That will produce bad actions from a bad Government.

5.56 pm

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the absence throughout it, except during the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, of the Leader of the House. She presided over the introduction of the timetable motion, and decided to ride roughshod over the rights of the House by denying it the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation in whatever time we thought to be appropriate. She has adopted a procedure which "Erskine May" and all our traditions make it clear can be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. Despite all that, the right hon. Lady left the Chamber after the introductory speech of her hon. Friend.

The right hon. Lady cannot even be bothered, or is not even willing, to display the courtesy of waiting to hear what the House, which she supposedly leads, thinks about the decision. I do not know what you think about leadership of that kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it certainly does not meet my notion of what leadership of the House of Commons should involve.

This is a sad day for the House of Commons. I know that there have been timetable motions in the past—far too many, in my view—introduced by Conservative and Labour Governments, but today we are going further down the road. We have heard today that previous Governments have had excuses for introducing timetable motions that do not exist today. There have been filibusters in the course of Bills, and the Government of the day have had to resort to a timetable motion. All of us agree that, if there is a genuine filibuster, it is necessary to have the sanction of a timetable motion.

It has been said that, on previous occasions, the Finance Bill has been guillotined because there was a general election in the middle of it—the earlier part of it went through without a guillotine. That may not be a good excuse, either. I regret that guillotines should have been used so frequently. I for one never voted for the Jopling proposals, because I never wanted to curtail our debates artificially except in exceptional circumstances. I always believed that the onus must fall on the Government to show that the circumstances are genuinely exceptional.

But none of the excuses that have apparently been attached to previous timetable motions can be attached to today's motion. We have not started debate on the Finance Bill in Committee; there has been no filibuster, and no amendments have been tabled that might be regarded as obstructive. There has not been a general election in the middle of proceedings, after the initial publication of the Finance Bill. This is one further major step towards treating debates in the House as a perfunctory ritual exercise. That is extremely sad for anyone who believes in the useful role that the House should play. It is sad for the cause of good legislation. It is a bad day.

One cannot help noticing that the subject of today's guillotine motion is the Finance Bill. There is something special about Finance Bills; through them, we levy taxes—we take away a citizen's property. This place has been in existence for 700 years; we have always recognised the Finance Bill as one of its most vital and sensitive roles. We should not abuse the power we have to take away other people's property. By definition, we need to have the maximum debate, careful consideration and open argument. The Government who propose the fiscal measures should be forced to defend themselves.

Another matter, which is not quite so serious, but serious nevertheless, is that a Finance Bill is complex. No human being can honestly say that he or she is capable of grasping the full meaning of a Finance Bill on first reading. Even experts who make their living explaining the exigencies of Finance Bills to their clients would not dream of coming to too rapid a conclusion about their meaning. A Finance Bill needs more time for consideration than most legislation. It is important that experts and potential taxpayers who may bear the impact of the Finance Bill should have the opportunity to give it thorough consideration.

The House also needs to decide whether the Budget's basic fiscal judgment is appropriate. I argued strongly on Second Reading that it was inappropriate for a Government who said clearly in the Red Book that the economy was overheating, that the output gap was close to zero, that there was more overheating in the service sector than in manufacturing, but that there were strong signs of excessive growth in consumption in both sectors—and all that before the windfall gains that have come to members of building societies as a result of the societies' demutualisation—not to introduce a Finance Bill to address those problems. Now is not the time to discuss whether the diagnosis was right. The Budget should provide an appropriate economic remedy.

We need time to debate such matters, and to make the essential calculations. The Red Book contains nothing about the incremental liability of companies to make additional provision to maintain the solvency of their occupational pension schemes. We know that many companies will have to make such additional provision; it is compulsory, under statute law passed through the House, that companies must maintain the solvency of their occupational pensions with guaranteed benefits.

However, we also know that, because of the abolition of the dividend tax credit—a provision contained in the Bill—the return on investments made by pension funds in British equities, which is far and away the biggest aspect of British pension funds' investment, will be substantially reduced. We know that there will be a burden on the corporate sector. The Government have not calculated that burden for us, but we need to know what it is before we can consider the Bill in the round. We cannot complete the calculation overnight; individual companies will have to use their computers and work out the figures so that we can see the aggregate position in the British economy as a whole.

It is an insult to give the House just 12 days to scrutinize—not merely nod through—complex legislation, to consider in detail the economic consequences of what is proposed, and to do an honest job for those who have sent us here. Frankly, it would be a joke were it not so serious. Such action is serious, not only in relation to the Bill's impact, but because the way in which the matter has been handled will have serious consequences for the respect in which Parliament and our procedures are held by the public.

The fact that, having introduced the shocking guillotine motion this afternoon, the Leader of the House cannot be bothered to listen to what we have to say about the measure that is about to be rammed through by an arrogant Government with an enormous majority, is perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of our proceedings.

6.5 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

I almost feel that I should crave the House's indulgence for a maiden speech. To stand at the Dispatch Box and wind up a debate after 27 years is an unusual experience. It is also an unhappy one, not merely because of the subject matter, but because we have not really had a debate. There have been a series of admirable speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends, but only two offerings from the Government.

The Financial Secretary tried hard, but did not succeed, to justify the application of the timetable motion. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is sadly not in his place now, gave an inimitable speech. He treated us to one of his three or four set-piece speeches and gave it with his customary panache. He made it quite plain that he was speaking for himself, standing alone. He also made it plain that he was hoping to become a recruiting sergeant for the 318 Labour Members of Parliament who are unlikely to get Government jobs. I hope that he succeeds: if he does, it might enliven our proceedings.

We must consider today's motion in the light of two factors. First, will the Budget and the Finance Bill receive adequate scrutiny and debate in Committee, both on the Floor of the House and in the Committee Room? Secondly, are the procedures of the House being sensibly and sensitively used by a Government who have proclaimed, through the Leader of the House—I am glad to see that she is at last returning to the Chamber—that they wish to see those procedures modernised and adapted?

If there are any problems over the timing of the Finance Bill, they are of the Government's own making. In an admirable and fluent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that in 1979, when we had a change of Government and an election on 3 May, we had a fairly complex Budget on 12 June, followed by a Finance Bill. That Finance Bill was not guillotined. If this Government had stuck to their original date and produced a Budget on 10 June—throughout and just after the election, they were telling us that they were aiming for a Budget at about that time—we would have had adequate debate on the Finance Bill.

We could forgive the Government their actions if what they had produced was a Budget that merely enacted the measures that they had talked about during the election campaign—if it had been a Budget to introduce the windfall tax and virtually nothing else. But that is not the case. As hon. Member after hon. Member—including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), in an excellent contribution—has made plain, we are dealing with a major Budget and a major Finance Bill. The Bill will affect people throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) called it a short-term Budget and, in the context in which he used those words, they were entirely right and accurate. However, although it may be a short-term Budget, it will inflict long-term pain.

That we shall have, in effect, only two and a half hours to debate each of the four clauses to be taken on the Floor of the House is not only an insult to the House of Commons, but an insult to the people who sent us here and to all those whose lives will be touched and affected by the Finance Bill. We have to consider the changes to advance corporation tax—even the Leader of the House did not seem to be entirely clear about the implications when answering business questions last week—foreign income dividends and a whole range of measures that deserve proper consideration in the House. More important, there should be time to consult the outside interests who have legitimate points to make to their Members of Parliament.

The Leader of the House, who chairs the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and does so with great distinction and good humour, is always reminding us—I shall not breach confidences by talking about what we are discussing upstairs—that we need to have proper timetabling for Bills. I have never been a friend of the brutal guillotine and I have voted against guillotines introduced by Governments of both parties. I shall never forget five-in-a-day Michael Foot, when five guillotines were introduced in the House in one day under a previous Labour Government. I have always felt that the guillotine is a brutal weapon; at the same time, I have always favoured proper and adequate timetabling, but adequate timetabling means precisely that—there must be a proper opportunity to debate each issue in some detail. Nobody in this House can pretend for a moment that two and a half hours, which must encompass the Front-Bench speeches, is enough time to debate ACT or anything else of any importance. The Government are, indeed, behaving with Cromwellian disdain for this House—one wonders when someone will come in and tell us to "Take away these baubles." It is monstrous that such arrogance should be displayed so early in the life of a Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, this is the second guillotine on a major Bill in eight weeks. He made the excellent point, picked up by one or two other of my hon. Friends, that it is only just beginning to hit home with local authorities that they will be affected by the Budget and that there could be consequential increases in council tax throughout the country. Why is proper time not allowed for the Government to consult the leaders even of Labour-controlled local authorities? Sadly, at the moment the Conservatives do not control many local authorities, but the Paymaster General's party does and he is not allowing anything like enough time for proper consultation.

The Bill is being steamrollered through the House. In her admirable speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) pointed out that, with all the Conservative Government's Finance Bills, there was an average of 77 days between publication of the Bill and the completion of its passage through the House; and that only two Finance Bills in 18 years were timetabled by the Conservative Government. Yet here we have a complex Bill, introduced on the eve of the recess, which is to be steamrollered through in this way.

There is no need for that to happen. The Leader of the House can keep us here in August if she wants to—we shall come; we shall debate the Bill; we have no objection. We would rather have the Finance Bill adequately and properly debated in August than rushed through in July. Such is the Government's majority that we know that they will get their way, so there is no particular reason why the Bill should not be completed when we come back, even if we do not come back until the traditional October. Sadly, I do not have the cottage in Sardinia that the hon. Member for Bolsover wished on me, but the Paymaster General has a villa in Tuscany and he is obviously longing to get there. It is not the shooting of grouse, but the basking in the Tuscan sun while drinking chianti that is propelling the Bill through the House. I should not say too much on that subject, because I live in the fond hope that I shall one day receive an invitation to that palatial home, in which so many of the great issues of the nation have been discussed over the past few years.

Mr. Skinner

There will be a lot of people in the queue.

Sir Patrick Cormack

I am sure that there will. The guest list is doubtless one of the most illustrious compiled in recent times.

Mr. Collins

Publish it.

Sir Patrick Cormack

Publish it, indeed.

To return to the purpose of the debate, this is a serious issue. Good humour should always enliven our debates and it is a good thing when it does, but I would say to all Labour Members—especially those who have recently joined our number—that they are doing no service, either to themselves or to their constituents, if they allow themselves to be used as ciphers and rubber-stamp everything that the Government of the day place before them. As one of my hon. Friends said, they must not allow themselves to be, in effect, usurped by the people's panels, the setting up of which was announced today.

If there is a true people's panel, it should be here in this House, whose Members are elected by the people—that is what we are here for. We are here to discuss, to debate, to deliberate and to scrutinise. It is the duty of the legislature to hold the Executive to account, regardless of which party the Executive come from. I can say that because I frequently made speeches critical of my own party when it was in government—that is probably why it has taken me 27 years to get to the Dispatch Box. Labour Members—especially those who are newly elected—should give a thought to this: there is no greater honour than to be elected to this House, but one is elected to this House as a representative of one's constituency; one's political party membership takes a very low second place to that.

Every Member of Parliament has a duty to scrutinise, to examine and to speak, and hon. Members who have absented themselves this afternoon from the debate and abdicated their opportunity to contribute to it have not been setting a good example or serving their constituents as well as they might have done. If we are able to agree on proposals to modernise the procedures of this House—I am bound to say that the actions of the Leader of the House call into question her sincerity in that respect—it is extremely important that everybody tries to make the new system work. It is not sensible debate when half the House absents itself for a whole afternoon.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor)

It takes two sides.

Sir Patrick Cormack

The right hon. Lady says that it takes two sides, but this afternoon we have had only one side—no Labour Back Bencher has been prepared to stand and speak in support of the motion. Perhaps I should draw a charitable conclusion from that and say that it is because the Government have no stomach for it. They certainly should not have the stomach for it, because it is despicable for the Government to place the motion before the House only eight weeks after the general election. Having bodged their timetabling, delayed the Budget unnecessarily and made it far more complex than it need have been—indeed, we need not have had a Budget until November—the Government are seeking to ride roughshod over the procedures and Members of the House.

I urge all hon. Members from minority parties, who I hope are here in force, to register their collective disapproval of a Government who have behaved with a disdainful arrogance that augurs ill for democracy.

6.20 pm

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson)

I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to his new position as—I must get this right—deputy shadow Leader of the House. As he reminded us, he has been in this place for 27 years, and it is fitting that he should attain that rank and—as I am sure that the House will agree—much more during a distinguished career in this place.

Several times, the hon. Gentleman upbraided Labour Members for not being present in full force this afternoon. He and his hon. Friends have told us at great length and with great force that it is disgraceful that there is not enough time, in the timetable in the guillotine motion that we propose for the Finance Bill, for all aspects of the Bill to be studied thoroughly enough.

As Opposition Members will realise, we went to a great deal of trouble to provide time on Second Reading, and if the hon. Gentleman had been present, he would have seen that for hours on end there was barely a Conservative Member in the Chamber, let alone taking part in the debate. That is how phoney, hypocritical and irrelevant the tone of the Opposition speeches has been.

We are having the debate only because my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) could not get his opposite number, the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Maldon and Chelmsford, East (Mr. Whittingdale), even to talk about an end date for the Finance Bill. He was not allowed to. I have a handwritten but very detailed account from my hon. Friend about all his meetings—how hard he tried—

Mr. Garnier

Put him on oath.

Mr. Robinson

In case the hon. and learned Gentleman did not realise, we are all on oath in this Chamber. It is sad that he did not realise it, and many Opposition contributions would be much better if that fact were more widely realised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East visited the Conservative Whip at 2.55 pm on 7 July. At 3.25 pm, my hon. Friend went to see him, and at 4 o'clock. He spoke with him at 4.27 pm. He agreed that they would meet—but the Whip had to rush off and see a Secretary of State; he could not meet my hon. Friend. Could he see my hon. Friend at 5 o'clock? He could not see him, and the one thing that he could not do was talk about the timetable. By the end of the day—the end of the titanic negotiation that had taken place between the two of them—the only items that could be discussed were the matters that should be taken on the Floor of the House and the size of the Committee. It went on similarly on 8 July and 9 July, and for that reason—because we could not reach a sensible understanding through the usual channels—we had to introduce a timetable motion.

Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robinson

I want to make some progress.

Our objectives are twofold: to ensure time for adequate scrutiny of the Budget, and to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to the people of the United Kingdom before the autumn. The guillotine motion is the only way in which to achieve those objectives. The timetable is necessary because we will not let the Opposition stand in the way of legislation, to ensure that the priorities that people voted for on I May and which are contained in the Finance Bill come into force. We will not let delaying tactics by the Opposition stand in the way of the priorities of the British people.

The British people voted for a cut in VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.; the Finance Bill cuts VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. We want that legislation passed as soon as possible, so that the bills are cut by the winter. That is why we are introducing the change on 1 September, and we will not let the Opposition stand in the way.

The British people voted for a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, to help us move people from welfare to work. The Finance Bill legislates for the windfall levy. We want the programme of work for the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed and single parents to be up and running as soon as possible.

Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, unlike the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He bases his argument, as she did, on promises made by the Labour party. Did the British people vote for 17 tax increases? Above all, did they vote for the imposition of £5 billion tax on their pension funds? The answer is no, so those measures should not be rammed through by a guillotine motion.

Mr. Robinson

People voted in record numbers for a Labour Government, who gained a massive majority, when a windfall tax and a cut in VAT on fuel had been clearly spelt out in the Labour manifesto, as had an economic policy based on the medium and long term, not on the short-term fixes that the country got sick of under the Tories.

Dr. Fox

The hon. Gentleman mentioned detailed contacts between the Whips Offices. I wonder whether he has the authority of the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House to make public contacts between the usual channels, and whether that is the way in which the Government will do business in future.

Mr. Robinson

I am merely explaining why it was impossible to reach an agreed timetable for the Bill and why, with great regret, we had to introduce a timetable motion.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard

We heard all that from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. May we now hear, concisely, exactly how the timetable promotes sensible input, partnership and consultation with the business sector, so vaunted by the Government?

Mr. Robinson

We have an excellent set of relationships with the business sector. As the right hon. Lady knows, business people voted for us in droves and explained why they had done so, and we shall continue to develop those excellent relationships as the business sector looks forward to a Labour Government with not one period in office but, in all probability, two.

We have had all the usual hypocritical high dudgeon from Opposition Members. They seem to be upset that they are not introducing the motion themselves. After all, they have had plenty of practice, and we need no lectures from a Tory Government who introduced 82 guillotines on 61 Bills.

In February 1994, there were four guillotines in four weeks. The Tories guillotined the longest Finance Bill in history—244 clauses and 24 schedules—after only five hours in Committee; and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has the gall to lecture us, telling us that "Erskine May" says that only after a suitable and appropriate number of hours in Committee should a timetable motion be introduced. I am talking about facts; Conservative Members do not want to hear about them, but they will have to.

This time round, a new element has crept into the Tories' approach—an extension to opposition of their incompetence in government. I am so pleased that the deputy shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), is in the Chamber.

Mr. Stunell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robinson

I shall in a moment.

As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out, we start the Committee on the Floor of the House tomorrow, between 3.30 pm and 3.45 pm. We look forward to a great deal of technical debate, inspired by the depth of knowledge and other characteristics that Opposition Members will bring to the Committee.

I hate to tell the House that, of the eight amendments so far tabled by the Opposition, none has been accepted by the House authorities as being in order for debate and Division. We have a situation, unique in my knowledge of Committee work, where tomorrow, even if starred amendments are introduced today, there will be no Opposition amendment that we can debate specifically and on which the Committee can divide—and the shadow Chancellor prides himself on his intellectual mastery of detail.

Since I entered the House, I have believed that a Government with a working majority—we certainly seem to have that—have a right to get their business through the House. In doing so, they should show regard for the Opposition, for minority parties and for Back Benchers on both sides of the House; we have certainly done that. While we are anxious to put our policies into action as soon as possible, we are also keen to allow hon. Members and people outside the House to scrutinise the measures in the Budget and to consider its details carefully. That is why we have allowed two days in Committee on the Floor of the House, which, incidentally, is the same as the previous Government allowed in 1996–97 for a Finance Bill that had twice the number of clauses as ours. It is also the same amount of time as they gave their Finance Bill in 1995–96, which had four times the number of clauses as the Bill before the House.

Mr. Stunell

The Minister seems to base a substantial part of his case on the fact that, because the Tories did the same, it is all right for Labour to do it. Can he expound that argument a little further in relation to financial and other matters on which the Opposition have criticised the Government?

Mr. Robinson

It would be more encouraging if the Liberal Democrat Opposition had done what they did on previous occasions and supported timetable motions put forward by the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman must consider that we wanted to avoid a guillotine motion but, because the Opposition would not consider an end date for the Bill, we resorted reluctantly to the guillotine.

Despite all that, we have ensured that the four big issues—the windfall tax, MIRAS, medical insurance and pension tax credits—which the Opposition wanted to debate on the Floor of the House, will be debated here. We have enabled the Standing Committee to meet for five days, which is more time per clause than the previous Government usually allowed.

The length of the Budget debate was agreed in the usual way, and we had four days' debate instead of the two days that the Opposition originally proposed. We now know why they proposed only two days—there is so little real interest on the Opposition Benches that they could not keep anything near an acceptable complement of their Members in the Chamber.

We tried time and again to agree a timetable with the Opposition. We agreed to their request for a Standing Committee of 35 members, which is 25 per cent. more than the Standing Committee that dealt with the previous Finance Bill. Although we have increased the number and extended the time as far as we reasonably can, it is still beyond their wit and competence to introduce a single amendment for the first stage of the Committee tomorrow on the Floor of the House, which will deal with the windfall tax. We have agreed with the Opposition on what the issues should be. We even agreed to have a later Committee stage, to give them time to get their act together.

The Tories on the Standing Committee should therefore knuckle down, put in the work and stop whingeing. Above all, they should start to get a grip of the Bill that they want to scrutinise. We had no choice but to impose a guillotine motion, to ensure that the Bill is passed before the summer recess.

The Opposition say that they are worried that interested bodies will not have an adequate chance to comment on the Budget. We welcome their scrutiny, which is why we published the Bill in draft before its formal publication. We provided that amendments could be tabled from Monday evening, even before Second Reading, but still the Opposition have not tabled one that is in order.

The election on 1 May showed decisively that the British people wanted Britain to be set on a new course. The Finance Bill puts our manifesto commitments into practice. It starts to equip our country for the future and it meets the people's priorities. The Opposition should stop trying to re-fight the battles of the election, because the British people have made their choice. We shall not allow the Opposition to obstruct the will of the British people or the people's priorities. The Finance Bill keeps our promises to the British people and stands up for the people's priorities. I commend the timetable motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 175.

Division No. 53]	[6.33 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Blears, Ms Hazel
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Blizzard, Bob
Ainger, Nick	Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Borrow, David
Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Bradshaw, Ben
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Ashton, Joe
Atkins, Charlotte	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Austin, John	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Banks, Tony	Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)
Barnes, Harry	Buck, Ms Karen
Barron, Kevin	Burden, Richard
Battle, John	Burgon, Colin
Bayley, Hugh	Butler, Christine
Beard, Nigel	Byers, Stephen
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Bennett, Andrew F	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Benton, Joe	Canavan, Dennis
Best, Harold	Cann, Jamie
Betts, Clive	Caplin, Ivor
Blackman, Liz	Casale, Roger

Caton, Martin	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Cawsey, Ian	Godman, Dr Norman A
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Godsiff, Roger
Chaytor, David	Goggins, Paul
Chisholm, Malcolm	Golding, Mrs Llin
Clapham, Michael	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Graham, Thomas
	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Grocott, Bruce
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Grogan, John
Clelland, David	Gunnell, John
Clwyd, Ann	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Coaker, Vernon	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Cohen, Harry	Hanson, David
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Colman, Tony (Putney)	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Connarty, Michael	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Heppell, John
Cooper, Yvette	Hesford, Stephen
Corbett, Robin	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hill, Keith
Corston, Ms Jean	Hinchliffe, David
Cousins, Jim	Hoey, Kate
Cox, Tom	Home Robertson, John
Cranston, Ross	Hood, Jimmy
Crausby, David	Hoon, Geoffrey
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hope, Phil
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)	Hoyle, Lindsay
	Hurst, Alan
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Hutton, John
Dalyell, Tam	Iddon, Dr Brian
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Illsley, Eric
Darvill, Keith	Ingram, Adam
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Davidson, Ian	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jamieson, David
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dawson, Hilton	Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Denham, John	Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Dismore, Andrew
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Doran, Frank	Jowell, Ms Tessa
Dowd, Jim	Keeble, Ms Sally
Drown, Ms Julia	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kemp, Fraser
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Edwards, Huw	Khabra, Piara S
Efford, Clive	Kidney, David
Ellman, Ms Louise	Kilfoyle, Peter
Ennis, Jeff	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Etherington, Bill	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Fatchett, Derek	Kingham, Mrs Tess
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Fitzsimons, Loma	Laxton, Bob
Flynn, Paul	Lepper, David
Follett, Barbara	Leslie, Christopher
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)	Liddell, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George	Linton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria	Livingstone, Ken
Galbraith, Sam	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Galloway, George	Lock, David
Gapes, Mike	Love, Andrew
Gardiner, Barry	McAllion, John
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McAvoy, Thomas
Gerrard, Neil	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gibson, Dr Ian	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

McDonagh, Siobhain	Ruddock, Ms Joan
Macdonald, Calum	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McDonnell, John	Ryan, Ms Joan
McIsaac, Shona	Sawford, Phil
Mackinlay, Andrew	Sedgemore, Brian
McLeish, Henry	Sheerman, Barry
McNulty, Tony	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
MacShane, Denis	Shipley, Ms Debra
Mactaggart, Fiona	Short, Rt Hon Clare
McWalter, Tony	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Singh, Marsha
Mallaber, Judy	Skinner, Dennis
Mandelson, Peter	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Maxton, John	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smitn, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Meale, Alan	Snape, Peter
Michael, Alun	Soley, Clive
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Spellar, John
Milburn, Alan	Squire, Ms Rachel
Miller, Andrew	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mitchell, Austin	Steinberg, Gerry
Moffatt, Laura	Stevenson, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Morley, Elliot	Stott, Roger
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mountford, Kali	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Mudie, George	Stringer, Graham
Mullin, Chris	Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Naysmith, Dr Doug
Norris, Dan	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Thomss, Gareth (Clwyd W)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
O'Hara, Edward	Timms, Stephen
Olner, Bill	Tipping, Paddy
O'Neill, Martin	Todd, Mark
Organ, Mrs Diana	Touhig, Don
Osborne, Mrs Sandra	Trickett, Jon
Pearson, Ian	Truswell, Paul
Pendry, Tom	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Perham, Ms Linda	Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Pickthall, Colin	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pike, Peter L	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Plaskitt, James	Vaz, Keith
Pollard, Kerry	Vis, Dr Rudi
Pond, Chris	Walley, Ms Joan
Pope, Greg	Ward, Ms Claire
Pound, Stephen	Watts, David
Powell, Sir Raymond	White, Brian
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Wicks, Malcolm
Primarolo, Dawn	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Purchase, Ken
Quin, Ms Joyce	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Radice, Giles	Wills, Michael
Rapson, Syd	Winnick, David
Raynsford, Nick	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Wise, Audrey
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)	Woolas, Phil
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)	Worthington, Tony
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Wray, James
Rogers, Allan	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Rooker, Jeff	Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Rooney, Terry	Wyatt, Derek
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted	Tellers for the Ayes:
Roy, Frank	Mr. Kevin Hughes and
Ruane, Chris	Mr. John McAllion.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Harvey, Nick
Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)	Hawkins, Nick
Amess, David	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Arbuthnot, James	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Baker, Norman	Horam, John
Ballard, Mrs Jackie	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Blunt, Crispin	Hunter, Andrew
Body, Sir Richard	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Brady, Graham
Brake, Thomas	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Brand, Dr Peter	Keetch, Paul
Brazier, Julian	Key, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Burns, Simon	Leigh, Edward
Burstow, Paul	Letwin, Oliver
Butterfill, John	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Cable, Dr Vincent	Lidington, David
Cash, William	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
	Loughton, Tim
Chidgey, David	Luff, Peter
Chope, Christopher	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Clappison, James	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	MacKay, Andrew
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
	McLoughlin, Patrick
Collins, Tim	Madel, Sir David
Colvin, Michael	Maginnis, Ken
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Malins, Humfrey
Cran, James	Maples, John
Curry, Rt Hon David	Mates, Michael
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Day, Stephen	May, Mrs Theresa
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Merchant, Piers
Duncan, Alan	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Duncan Smith, Iain	Nicholls, Patrick
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Oaten, Mark
Evans, Nigel	Öpik, Lembit
Ewing, Mrs Margaret	Ottaway, Richard
Faber, David	Page, Richard
Fabricant, Michael	Paice, James
Fallon, Michael	Paterson, Owen
Feam, Ronnie	Prior, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Foster, Don (Bath)	Rendel, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Robathan, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fraser, Christopher	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gale, Roger	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Garnier, Edward	St Aubyn, Nick
Gibb, Nick	Sanders, Adrian
Gill, Christopher	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gray, James	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Green, Damian	Soames, Nicholas
Greenway, John	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, Dominic	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Spring, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Steen, Anthony
Hammond, Philip	Streeter, Gary
Hancock, Mike	Stunell, Andrew
Harris, Dr Evan	Swayne, Desmond

Syms, Robert	Wells, Bowen
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)	Whittingdale, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Willetts, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Willis, Phil
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wilshire, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tredinnick, David	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Trend, Michael	Woodward, Shaun
Tyler, Paul	Yeo, Tim
Tyrie, Andrew	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Viggers, Peter
Walter, Robert	Tellers for the Noes:
Wardle, Charles	Mr. Oliver Heald and
Waterson, Nigel	Mr. Malcolm Moss.

TABLE
Allotted day	Proceedings	Time for conclusion of proceedings
First day	Clause 1	7:00 p.m.
	Clause 15	10:00 p.m.
Second day	Clause 17	7:00 p.m.
	Clause 19	10:00 p.m.

(3) When the Order of the day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in Committee of the whole House.

(5) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

Standing Committee

2.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the remainder of the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill not later than 23rd July.

(2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

(3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee on 23rd July may continue until Ten o'clock whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion, the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 24th July.

Report and Third Reading

3.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days.

(2) The Third Reading may be proceeded with at the conclusion of the proceedings on consideration, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between stages of a Bill brought in on Ways and Means resolutions.

Business Committee

4.—(1) For the purposes of Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) paragraph 3 of this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of the allotted days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolution as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 25th July.

(3) Any resolution of the Business Committee may be varied by a further Report of the Committee under Standing Order No. 82, whether before or after the date on which the Committee is to report under this paragraph and whether or not that Resolution has been agreed to by the House.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Finance Bill:—

Committee of the whole House

1.—(1) The proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two allotted days.

(2) The proceedings to be taken on each of those days shall be as shown in the second column, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the third column, of the following Table:—

(4) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be taken on consideration, but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations to that order.

Procedure in Standing Committee

5.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee, the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

(3) No Motion shall be made as to the order in which proceedings are to be considered in the Standing Committee, but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Report of proceedings in Committee

6. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, the Chairman shall report such of the Bill's provisions as were committed (or re-committed) to that Committee to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Exempted business

8. On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall not apply by virtue of paragraph (a) of that paragraph to any proceedings on the Bill after the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day.

Private business

9.—(1) 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 Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (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 conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

10. 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 or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

1. (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) any Question 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, whether before the time so appointed or in pursuance of paragraph (a), the Question that the Clause or Schedule, or the Clause or Schedule as amended, be added to the Bill);
3. (c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
4. (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

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

11.—(1) Proceedings under paragraph 10 of this Order shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

1. (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
2. (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

12.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) 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 or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

13. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee shall—

1. (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; 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.

Recommittal

14.—(1). References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

15. 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; Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House; and Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee.