Business of the House (Hansard, 6 July 2004)

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Here we have a piece of business that, I am very happy to see from the Order Paper, can take us through until 7 o'clock this evening. Given the importance of the matter, we may want to take up most of that time, although sadly—not untypically but sadly—the Minister has not seen fit to share with us her view of why the motion is necessary. When we have a motion such as this, which the Order Paper rightly allows us until 7 o'clock to debate, rather too frequently the Minister does not even do the House the courtesy of explaining why it is before us. That puts us at something of a disadvantage. We may have to spend some time speculating as to why the motion is on the Order Paper, because the Minister has not seen fit to tell us. At some stage—who knows?—Ministers may learn that, if they were to do us the simple courtesy of explaining what such motions meant and what their intentions were, the subsequent debate could be correspondingly briefer, but sadly, since the Minister has not sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will have to spend a bit of time speculating as to what it is all about.
I was able to do a modest bit of research on the motion, with, as usual, the help of the Table Office. It was pointed out that the matter is referred to in page 855 of the brand spanking new 23rd edition of "Erskine May", which I strongly recommend to the House. Page 855 refers to Intervals between stages of taxation legislation. May I quote briefly from that part of "Erskine May", which sets the context for the debate that will follow and that can run until 7 o'clock? It states that it is a rule of the House that not more than one stage of a bill brought in on a Ways and Means resolution (ie a taxation bill) should be taken on the same day. That is on the face of it an explanation of why we have the motion before us. "Erskine May" goes on to say, in its ever helpful way: This is the last remaining expression in the House's practice of what was once a general principle—that the House's agreement to expenditure or to the imposition of taxation should be conditional upon a number of distinct opportunities for discussion. In a nutshell, there has been a sad decline in both the ability and, one has to say, the willingness of the House to take these matters as seriously as it should. Ways and Means resolutions have a long history and they usually indicate, or should indicate, that some serious matters are being dealt with. We only have to glance at the Order Paper to see that, following this business, we have three Ways and Means motions—items four, five and six, to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment.
I assume—the Minister may give us some guidance on this, if she bothers at any stage in the debate to reveal her thinking—that, if we were not to pass the business of the House motion, either none or only one of the following Ways and Means motions could be taken today. I assume that the Government have speculatively, in their 706 usual pushy and presumptive way, put three Ways and Means motions on today's Order Paper, truncated as the debates on them are to 45 minutes—I will refer to that in a moment, too—and that that is contingent on our approving item three.
One is left to speculate. Were we not to pass the business of the House motion—I ask the House seriously to consider not approving it—could only the first Ways and Means motion be taken today? Would one of the three be taken? Could the Minister pick and choose and suggest which one should be taken before we get on to the Finance Bill itself, about which I will also say a word in a moment? That is the first point at issue.
I have been guided by "Erskine May" as to the context of the motion. It indicates that, historically, the House of Commons has always wished to be able to dwell on these financial matters at proper length and in proper detail, which is entirely appropriate because, as we know, historically, one of the main roles of the House has been to represent the taxpayer vis-à-vis the Government of the day and to give proper and serious consideration to matters arising from both taxation and expenditure, which is the whole point of Ways and Means.
Of course, we have before us three Ways and Means motions, although speculatively so, because until we determine the business motion under discussion, we will not know which of those motions we will discuss, or whether we will be able do so. The first is headed, "Rent factoring of leases of plant or machinery", and states: That provision may be made in the Finance Bill for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax in relation to arrangements for the transfer of a person's right to receive rentals under a lease of plant or machinery. That strikes me as a matter of some substance and importance, which the House might want to dwell on. Sadly, however, we are constrained to a mere 45 minutes in which to debate it in its totality. That fact alone ought to concern the House considerably.
It appears that the Government want us then to move on rapidly, and to consider motion 5, on "Manufactured dividends and interest". It states: That provision may be made in the Finance Bill in relation to payments, and deemed payments, by companies of … manufactured dividends … manufactured interest, or … manufactured overseas dividends". I assume that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are champing at the bit to get stuck into these very important matters, and they doubtless have a lot to say about them. But sadly, the House—never mind my hon. Friends—will be allowed only 45 minutes in which to debate them, before it will then perforce be asked by the Government to move on to yet another Ways and Means motion, which is headed, "Gifts etc. of shares, securities or real property to charities". It states: That provision may be made in the Finance Bill amending section 587B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
I do not want to attempt at this stage to go into the detail of these Ways and Means motions, and you would not want me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Such a discussion awaits a later point in the day—perhaps after 7 o'clock this evening. Bearing it in mind that this debate, quite properly, can take us through until 7 o'clock, my hon. Friends might be able to go off and have lunch, afternoon tea and perhaps an early supper 707 before they even have a chance to debate the three motions—or perhaps only one of them, should we fail to agree to the motion before us.
I wanted to mention that point to give the House some idea of the way in which we are being asked to consider these important Ways and Means motions. We are being given only 45 minutes to discuss each of them, which is a sad reflection on the extent to which the Government now say to the House of Commons, "Never mind your historic role in protecting the taxpayer, and in overseeing expenditure through Ways and Means resolutions; we are giving you only 45 minutes in which to debate each of these very important financial matters." That is to say nothing of what follows.
We should remember the context as indicated in "Erskine May", which states that the House's agreement to expenditure or to the imposition of taxation should be conditional upon a number of distinct opportunities for discussion. That statement is made a nonsense of when we come to the Finance Bill proper, following these Ways and Means motions. On glancing at today's selection list, I see that there are no fewer than 21 groups of amendments and new clauses, of which 14 contain Government amendments and new clauses. They cover matters as vital as anti-avoidance, gifts to charities, overseas pension schemes, stamp duty land tax, disabled persons, individual savings accounts and personal equity plans, and fuel duty, to mention but a few.
The House is faced with the potential for debating a very wide variety of matters, contingent on the motion that we are considering. So we have to ask ourselves whether we are content with the motion before us, which contains the phrase, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions". In the good old days, the House was able properly to pause between considering such very important matters, to take time for reflection and perhaps for consultation with legitimate outside interests, and to give an opportunity for amendments to be considered. Now, of course, the Government—who are contemptuous, as ever, sadly, of the role of the House of Commons in these matters—want simply to steamroller us through all these motions in very quick succession if, and only if, we agree to the business motion.
It surely would have helped us in considering this motion if the Minister had done us the courtesy of first explaining why we have to compress these matters in the way suggested in the motion. Given that our business here is conducted in the full gaze of the public, I doubt whether I am giving away a great secret by pointing out that a mere glance at the Order Papers of the past few weeks reveals that we are not exactly being hard pressed in terms of the business before us; indeed, the same is true of Order Papers for the weeks to come. The Government's legislative programme seems almost to have dried up, and we have a succession of Adjournment debates. Very welcome such debates may be, but that does not suggest to me that there is enormous pressure on the House's time or on legislative time—quite the opposite.
708 It was surely incumbent on Ministers at the very least to explain to us why, under the terms of the motion before us, they want to compress the business in this way. There is surely ample time and opportunity, given the totality of the Order Papers for this and succeeding weeks, to consider these matters in the traditional way—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman may be anticipating my intervention. I hate to suggest this, but it is just possible that he is misinterpreting the motion. It deals with the difference in stages of the Bill, so what he has been saying about the Ways and Means motions is not relevant to the motion before us. The only point that the motion deals with is the question of the separation between Third Reading and the consideration stage.

§ Mr. Forth
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have, in your inimitable way, performed the task that I had hoped the Minister would perform. I initiated this debate—which can of course run until 7 o'clock, as you well know—for the sole reason that the Minister had not done us the courtesy of offering any explanation as to the point of, or reason for, the motion. I was therefore left to speculate, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, and you have rightly pointed out that I am speculating now. But I hope that you will understand that I was forced to do so, simply because the Minister had not done us the courtesy of saying even a few words, as you yourself have done so elegantly, to explain the point of the motion.
If you are telling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the motion has no relevance to the Ways and Means motions, I of course accept that. I should point out, however, that I am not sure whether you were in the Chair when I quoted from page 855 of the 23rd edition of "Erskine May", which you have doubtless already committed to memory. I shall re-read it into the record, because doing so will help you and the Clerks who keep an eye on us, and it will explain why I was speculating as I did. It states that it is a rule of the House that not more than one stage of a bill brought in on a Ways and Means resolution (ie a taxation bill) should be taken on the same day. That is what led me—erroneously, as it turns out—to refer to the Ways and Means motions on the Order Paper. Indeed, that was the very point on which I sought guidance in "Erskine May", to which I was guided by no less than the Clerks in the Table Office. I am not suggesting for a minute that that guidance is in any way at odds with your guidance to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you can see how I might have misinterpreted such guidance, in the absence of any help from the Minister. However, you have been very helpful in that regard.
We are then left to speculate further as to why this motion had to be included on the Order Paper. If it has no bearing on, or relevance to, the Ways and Means motions and relates only to the Finance Bill itself—and given that we have several days in which to deal with the Bill, on consideration of which, happily, no time limit has been imposed—one is left even more in the dark as to why we need this business motion at all. Given the leisurely nature of the way in which we can tackle these matters, and given the 21 groups of amendments—no fewer than 14 of which contain Government amendments and new clauses—I should 709 have thought that there was ample opportunity for debate on today's business before Third Reading, which will not come until a subsequent day. Therefore, I am still in the dark.
If this little episode illustrates nothing else, I hope that it illustrates again to Ministers that if they had the respect for the House that I still hope they will develop one of these days, however belatedly, they would find it easier to come to the House and give a brief explanation of a motion, which then might not have to be debated. It might be that the Minister's eloquence is sufficient to persuade us that a motion is straightforward and reasonable and that we need not concern ourselves with it. Ministers have not done that, so innocent souls such as myself are obliged to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speculate, as I have done today. I still think that that is a healthy expression of the interests of the House in the matter. Would that the House, frankly, were full of people who share my concerns, but that is not the fashion of the moment, I regret to say; perhaps it will come back one day.
I hope that, given the questions I have raised, notwithstanding your helpful advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister might see fit, even as a courtesy—maybe to me; certainly to the House—to get to her feet and give us an explanation of the motion. That would be my simple request and I hope that I will be satisfied by what she says.

§ The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
I am surprised, to put it mildly, by the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I understand that he entered the House in 1983; I did so in 1987. I do not recall a Minister ever speaking at the Dispatch Box on a motion to allow Committee, Report and Third Reading to take place over two days, as agreed through the usual channels. This is a procedural motion that has always gone through in this fashion. I was advised that, procedurally, this is what I should do. The motion allows us to spend today and tomorrow on Committee and Report, completing Third Reading tomorrow. If that offends the right hon. Gentleman I apologise, but his memory is clearly shorter than mine.