TABLE Sitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 1st Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 54 to 56 -- 2nd Clauses 4 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 54 to 56 (so far as not previously concluded) 7 p.m. 3rd Clause 57, Schedule 12, Clauses 58 to 61, Schedule 13, Clause 93, Clause 62, Schedule 14 1 p.m. 4th Clause 63, Schedule 15, Clause 64, Schedule 16, Clause 65, Schedule 17, Clause 66, Schedule 18 7 p.m. 5th Clause 67, Schedule 19, Clause 68, Schedule 20, Clause 69, Schedule 21, Clause 70, Schedules 22 and 23, Clause 71, Schedule 24, Clauses 72 and 73 11.25 a.m. 6th Clauses 74 and 75, Clause 104, Clause 76, Schedule 25, Clauses 77 and 78 7 p.m. 7th Clause 79, Schedule 26, Clauses 80 and 81, Schedule 27, Clause 82 1 p.m. 8th Clause 79, Schedule 26, Clauses 80 and 81, Schedule 27, Clause 82 (so far as not previously concluded) 7 p.m. 9th Clauses 83 to 85 11.25 a.m. 10th Clause 86, Schedule 28 7 p.m. 11th Clauses 87 to 89 1 p.m. 12th Clause 90, Schedule 29, Clauses 91 and 92, Clause 94 7 p.m. 13th Clauses 95 and 96 11.25 a.m. 14th Clause 97, Schedule 30, Clause 98 7 p.m. 15th Clause 99, Schedule 31, Clauses 100 to 103, Clause 105 1 p.m. 16th New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 32, Clause 108 — 17th New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 32, Clause 108 (so far as not previously concluded) — 18th New Clauses, New Schedules, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 32, Clause 108 (so far as not previously concluded) 7 p.m.
Finance Bill
Public Bill Committees, 26 April 2001, 9:30 am
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr. Clark, and to know that last year's proceedings were so gripping that you could not resist coming back and that they have also attracted Mr. O'Hara and Mr. Hood. I know that you will all keep the Committee in good order. Apropos your earlier statement, it befits a radical and innovative Finance Bill such as this that we have the unique distinction of red boxes to take away.
I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is leading for the Opposition for the first time on a Finance Bill. Committee members look forward to the ingenuity of his arguments and the spirit of intellectual odyssey that infuses his speeches, which might be sufficient to distract his hon. Friends from their priority campaigning task—to win over every last marginal vote in the Tory leadership contest. We also look forward to the contributions from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and his hon. Friends. I am sure that their inventiveness, even on this Bill, will find all sorts of ways to tax and spend.
This is a considerably shorter Finance Bill than we have had in recent years. Thanks to the generosity of our programming motion, more than one third of the clauses have already been disposed of in the House. As I look around at my hon. Friends, I can see that they are bearing their tragic disappointment stoically. Undoubtedly the proceedings will bring interest and enlightenment, perhaps even excitement, to hon. Members' lives in the coming weeks. It will be so compelling that hon. Members will not want to be distracted by any other business.
I shall take a strategic overview of the Bill and the proceedings, and will be especially indebted to my hon. Friends, the Paymaster General—who gives her apologies today—the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary. I feel sure that the brilliance and vigour of their arguments will persuade even the Opposition of the excellence of the Bill. In the remote likelihood that my hon. Friends need any further persuasion, it will be provided ably by our excellent Whip. I welcome all hon. Members to the Committee and wish them successful and expeditious deliberations.
Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)
That was a charming exposition from the Chief Secretary and we shall remember him for it as we continue our deliberations, which we expect, I fear, to be rather abbreviated. I will confine myself to speaking for a moment about the programming motion. It is unusual at this stage to talk about the subject for debate, but is worth doing so briefly on this occasion.
We are grateful to the Government for having programmed this phase of the proceedings generously and sensibly. Regrettably, we were not able to debate the new clauses that we wished to debate on the Floor of the House. Liberal Democrat Members join us in that thought. We considered the possibility of trying to accelerate our perusal of the clauses and schedules in the Bill in order to move onto the new clauses more expeditiously, and in the anticipation of an early announcement from the Prime Minister. However, we rejected that possibility and have chosen instead with the Government to proceed in the normal workmanlike fashion through the various clauses and schedules.
That means that we will not be able, in all likelihood, to debate important new clauses. However, Parliament should have the opportunity to go through the details of as much as possible of the Bill before we are cast into a general election. I hope, as we proceed, given the short time available to us, that all Members, as well as Ministers, will seek to investigate the Bill in the true spirit of a Committee stage—that is, looking at the details and not at broad general principles, and trying to get the best possible outcome in a number of detailed respects.
I fear that the amusements purveyed by the Chief Secretary were on this occasion purely amusements, because I do not think that anyone could take any actual interest in any of the remaining clauses as a matter of high politics or general policy. It is without exception the most boring Finance Bill that any Government have produced for a very long time. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is much better that it should be so than that it should contain a large number of exciting items such as the aggregates levy, which we were forced to consider on the Floor of the House, which is a catastrophic measure. There is nothing totally catastrophic in the remaining 250-odd pages. It is, therefore, sad that we shall all be boring ourselves to extinction, but it is necessary, because there are details in the Bill that need addressing.
We must remind ourselves, somewhat piously, that the lives of many of our fellow citizens will be affected by this boring material, so it behoves us to attempt to get the Bill as right as we can. I hope that Ministers will exhibit the same flexibility as on the previous Finance Bill, where they allowed substantial amendments. That may be all the more difficult in view of the likely high speed of our proceedings.
I echo the Chief Secretary's sentiments in welcoming you to the Chair, Dr. Clark, but I cannot think that the reason advanced for your presence by the Chief Secretary is correct. It must be in the spirit of self-sacrifice that you offered your services on this occasion. The self-sacrifice is likely to be great, but brief.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
Continuing the theme of the hon. Member for West Dorset, I also believe that a spirit of self-sacrifice has brought you to this arduous task, Dr. Clark. You may well be pleased if our proceedings are cut short. Will you pass on our greetings to the other two Chairmen—Mr. O'Hara and Mr. Hood?
As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, there is little that is controversial in the Bill, and he fairly described it as boring. Some of the flaws in our procedures are worth noting. The Bill may be boring and relatively uncontroversial, but it is also complex, and we have little time to find the problems lurking within the complexities.
Problems that the parliamentary draftsmen have not foreseen may escape our attention because we are debating a long Finance Bill—particularly in comparison with the Finance Bills of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In the short time available, we may fail to pick up the problems. I regret any failings and apologise to those who may be affected by them. It is less a failing of our abilities than of the whole process. I have long felt that it is a key and urgent task for this House to reform that process and I hope that the Government will give it serious thought. Let us hope that whoever is returned to power after the forthcoming election, will also give serious thought to reforming it.
Mr Oliver Letwin (West Dorset, Conservative)
I just want to put on record how much we agree with that. I also hope that after the election a political consensus will emerge across the House. There is no doubt about the need for deep reform of the procedure. Much more strenuous and detailed examination is required in a different format.
Mr Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful for that outbreak of consensus and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might find other reasons to agree as we progress through the Bill. I am also grateful for the Chief Secretary's warm and amusing remarks. Sometimes when reading Hansard, irony does not immediately strike one from the page, so let us make it clear that there was a degree of irony in the right hon. Gentleman's comments. When I first served on a Finance Bill Committee I was surprised at how long debates could last. That being the case, I shall now sit down.
Mr Michael Jack (Fylde, Conservative)
I also welcome you to the Chair, Dr. Clark, and the other Chairmen who will be presiding over our proceedings.
I rise to express a note of sadness because the programme motion breaks a long tradition in the way in which Finance Bills have been handled in this House. In days gone by, Standing Committees would sit through the night. There was a robustness about the debates that will sadly be lacking under the more forensic approach outlined in the programming motion. Sometimes we alight upon a point on which it is right to spend a little more time examining what a Minister may say to justify a position. With the constraints of a timetable, that facility will not be afforded to us, except at the expense of some other part of the Bill. I record my sadness that we must have a programming motion on a Bill that has always proceeded with a degree of consensus and tradition.
Mr Andrew Smith (Chief Secretary, HM Treasury; Oxford East, Labour)
Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that both the out-date of the programming motion and its structure have been determined by his hon. Friends? Moreover, are his comments made in the conservative spirit of wanting to leave things as they were or in the radical spirit of reform that the hon. Member for West Dorset advocated just a few moments ago? It is very early on to have such a serious Opposition split.
Mr Michael Jack (Fylde, Conservative)
If the Chief Secretary wants to debate the reform of the tax system, I will gladly detain him, but it would be unfair to do so in the light of the programming motion. Having been involved in the tax law rewrite exercise since its inception, I know that there is a great deal to commend the approach mentioned by my hon. Friend. I just wish that the Government had shown enthusiasm similar to that of the Chief Secretary for doing something about the subject. One item not included in the motion, and therefore not in the Bill, is a commitment to do anything to report to the House on possible simplification of the tax system and our procedures. I welcome the Chief Secretary's conversion to the subject. Perhaps before the end of the Bill we might even see some tangible sign that we are going to deal with the issue.
My purpose in commenting was not to criticise the allocation of time in the motion, but to acknowledge the passing of a tradition under which we agreed on the conduct of the Bill by consensus, giving us time to alight where necessary to debate in detail some fact that emerges in debate. That facility could be lost as a result of the programming motion.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)
For the sake of the record, should the right hon. Gentleman's regret at the passing of those late night debates in which he and I took part on occasion and which were of dubious quality and forensic outcome, especially on the Conservative side, be read as irony or humour?
Dr Michael Clark (Rayleigh, Conservative)
Order. The right hon. Member for the Fylde should respond briefly. I have so far been listening to items that are not in the motion or the Bill. Now we are reverting to a historical review of the proceedings of the House. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is brief, I shall have to call him to order.
Mr Michael Jack (Fylde, Conservative)
Thank you, Dr. Clark. In recent times, the amount of time that we have spent on undue late sittings has reduced. One could argue that the quality has improved.
The programming motion refers numerically to the clauses that we must debate. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, this is supposed to be a non-controversial Finance Bill, it still contains 180 clauses and 28 schedules. It shows no indication of the reforming zeal that the Chief Secretary enunciated a moment ago towards the way these procedures are taken. Finally, when Ministers come to present their case for these clauses, I hope that they will be prepared to give us detailed evidence to justify the policy positions being advanced.
Question put and agreed to.
Dr Michael Clark (Rayleigh, Conservative)
Before we proceed I have several announcements to make. First, copies of the ways and means and money resolutions agreed to by the House on which the Bill is founded are available in the Committee Room. Secondly, in view of the resolutions of the House relating to the declaration of interests, right hon. and hon. Members are required to declare relevant interests when they table amendments, as well as when they speak to them. Copies of the rules are available from the Committee Clerk. Thirdly, I referred earlier to the boxes behind me to my right. If hon. Members wish to make use of them, they can be locked in a filing cabinet when the Committee is not sitting. Finally, adequate notice must be given of amendments. Neither I, nor my co-Chairmen Mr. O'Hara or Mr. Hood, will as a rule call any starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting. Clause 4 Rates of tobacco products duty