House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jul 1991

Column 21

Points of Order

3.32 pm

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it has been brought to your attention that on Friday the debate ended in considerable acrimony because of the actions of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who broke with the tradition of the House and refused to allow the Minister any time to reply to the debate. When Back Benchers had finished speaking, there were 20 minutes left and it had been agreed that each Front-Bench speaker would have 10 minutes. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman deliberately spoke out his time because he did not want the Minister to answer the debate. If that happens, law and order in the Chamber will break down because anyone who succeeded in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, could go on speaking ad infinitum and no one else would get a chance to speak. It is very important that we do not allow Front-Bench spokesmen of any party to behave in such a way at the end of a very important debate.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I read in Hansard what the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time had to say. I understand that it was alleged that agreements made through the usual channels had not been kept. That is what Hansard reports, but certainly I think that the Government Front Bench should have an opportunity to reply to a debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of incurring your intense disapproval, may I ask you, as inscrutably as I can, on what authority in "Erskine May" you made a judgment, however much you may have deplored doing so, on an hon. Member wanting to raise an important subject--in this case, the threat of military action against Iraq--under Standing Order No. 20? I would like to argue very succinctly that

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that I can allow the hon. Member to do that, because then he will raise my--[ Hon. Members :-- "Dander"?] If the hon. Member had been available during the lunch hour to discuss the matter with me, I could have explained. I think that the whole House agrees that the Standing Order No. 20 procedure gives Back Benchers a prize opportunity to raise matters of great importance in prime time. Some time ago, I had to rule that I could not hear applications that did not even reach first base. It would not be right on any day for right hon. or hon. Members to take three minutes in prime time to discuss matters that they think are particularly important. If the hon. Gentleman had come to see me at lunch time, I would have explained to him why I could not hear his Standing Order No. 20 application today--and I am not going to hear it now.

Mr. Dalyell : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As to the question of certain debates, as I understand it, the problem is one of urgency. It is not just a question of wanting three minutes ; some of us desperately feel that, given the situation in which our country may be involved--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that it would be right for me to have an argument with the hon. Member,

Column 22

in the Chamber. Perhaps he will reflect that the United Nations deadline runs out on 25 July, and that gives us a little time.

Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you not required by the House not to give reasons for your rulings?

Mr. Speaker : Sure.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on your selection of amendments to the Finance Bill. You will be aware that a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to discuss the appalling decline of the British Merchant Navy, and have put their names to two new clauses that would have made such a discussion possible. I see that yours is a provisional list of amendments, Mr. Speaker, so am I right in assuming that there could be a revised and final list that might enable discussion on the new clauses to which I referred? Failing that--which I hope will not be the case--will you inform the House whether you selected any amendment on which a realistic debate about the plight of the British shipping industry could be mounted?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) has just explained to the House that I should not give reasons for my rulings. In fact, it would be very dangerous to do so. I think that the right hon. Member knows why, in that particular case, it was not possible for me to select the two new clauses to which he referred. I will not go beyond that. However, the issue could be raised on Third Reading.

Sir Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that that subject was not debated in Committee. A vast number of hon. Members want it to be debated, and it will not be understood outside the House if it is not. I refer to a letter that you, Mr. Speaker, sent to an hon. Member--which I believe is not confidential--in which you stated that because there was so much pressure upon you, and such urgent concern was felt about the matter, you felt that such a debate would be counter-productive. I venture to suggest that in reaching that decision, Mr. Speaker, you misdirected yourself. It may be that some of the letters that were sent to you were not properly phrased, and no doubt that is the fault of the hon. Members concerned. However, surely that should not have affected your judgment.

Mr. Speaker : As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned my letter, and said that my decision might not be understood outside the House, perhaps I should explain that I received a great many letters on the subject. Some of them included a copy letter that stated, "Please put this in your own words." When the Speaker receives letters of that kind, he is led to believe that there is some kind of organised lobbying, trying to persuade him to take certain action. Against that background, I could not possibly have selected the new clauses in question.

Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I reply to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt)? He did not tell me that he intended to raise the matter here this afternoon, but I suspected that someone would.

I want to make it absolutely clear that, when I rose to speak at 2.7 pm on Friday, I was still under the impression

Column 23

that the original agreement had been that the winding-up speeches would begin at 1.45 pm. I thought that the three consecutive Conservative speakers had taken time set aside for their own Minister. I said that I was going to finish when I was first interrupted by the Minister, but, following that, some seven minutes were taken up by Conservative Members raising points of order. If they had not been, I should have been able to finish my speech and to allow the Minister time to speak.

Mr. Speaker : It sounds as if there was a breakdown in communications between the usual channels. I think that we should leave it at that.

Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that I use the emergency written question procedure to deal with an urgent matter that has arisen in my constituency.

Over the past few days, new evidence has come to light that shows that Winston Silcott, of the Tottenham Three, is innocent, and that confessions were forged by police officers. Is there any means, apart from the written question procedure, of dragging the Home Secretary to the House, given the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman and I had a conversation about that too, and he knows what advice I gave him.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request for a full debate--or, at the very least, a ministerial statement--on the growing scandal of BCCI? Should not the Government be required to make a statement, and should there not be a procedure to allow that, given that it is clear that the relationship between the Bank of England--

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is taking time out of the debate on the Finance Bill--which, indeed, will give hon. Members an opportunity to discuss the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, provided that they do not raise too many points of order. It can be discussed on new clauses 3, 35 and 37.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome what you have said. During Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday, however, the Prime Minister stated--no doubt inadvertently--that the Bank of England had acted as soon as it was given notice that there was evidence of fraud. We now know--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot answer for what the Prime Minister said. This is not a matter for me. I think that it should be raised on new clause 3 of the Finance Bill. No doubt those responsible--that is, the Government--may be able to give an answer, but I cannot.

Column 24

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement that was made over the weekend about the new evidence surrounding Winston Silcott's conviction, do you not accept--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I had a conversation about that with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), and I explained the correct procedure then. I give procedural advice in private, and I cannot hear points of order on the subject now.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helen's, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed that he had answered only six questions. Up to 25 per cent. of his time was spent in saying that he did not intend to visit the County Palatine, or to carry out any Duchy business. Which Select Committee should I approach to find out whether the right hon. Gentleman's job is really worthwhile, or whether he should go?

Mr. Speaker : As I said, I give procedural advice in private.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned new clause 3 of the Finance Bill. The new clause is about the future of banking. However, the chief worry of more than 200,000 people in this country concerns what has happened in the past. The BCCI problem is not about the future, but about something awful that happened in the past. Why should there not be a separate debate?

Mr. Speaker : There will be an opportunity to consider the matter, and lessons for the future can be drawn from the past. The hon. Gentleman should not find it too difficult to refer to it later. Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments. Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Question agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS

Employee share schemes

Resolved,

That provision may be made about savings-related share option schemes and profit sharing schemes.-- [Mr. Maude.]

Column 25

Orders of the Day

Finance Bill

Not amended in the Committee and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 11

Employee share schemes : non-discrimination

.--(1) The Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Part III of Schedule 9 (requirements applicable to savings-related share option schemes) in paragraphs 19(b) and 20 for "pensionable age" there shall be substituted "the specified age". (3) In Schedule 10 (further provisions relating to profit sharing schemes) in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 2 and in sub-paragraph (c)(ii) of paragraph 3 for "pensionable age" there shall be substituted "the relevant age", and at the end of each of those paragraphs there shall be inserted--

"In this paragraph, the reference to the relevant age is a reference, in the case of a scheme approved before the day on which the Finance Act 1991 was passed, to pensionable age and, in the case of a scheme approved on or after that day, to the specified age". (4) In section 187(2) (definitions for the purposes of provisions relating to employee share schemes) after the definition of "shares" there shall be inserted--

" specified age', in relation to a scheme, means the age specified in pursuance of paragraph 8A of Schedule 9 as the specified age for the purposes of the scheme ;".

(5) In Part II of Schedule 9 (requirements generally applicable to employee share schemes) after paragraph 8 there shall be inserted-- "8A.--(1) In the case of a savings-related share option scheme or a profit sharing scheme, the scheme must specify what age is to be the specified age for the purposes of the scheme.

(2) The age specified--

(a) must be the same for men and women, and

(b) must not be less than 60 and not more than 75."

(6) Subsections (2) and (5) above shall have effect in relation to a scheme not approved before the day on which this Act is passed.'. Brought up, and read the First time.--[Mr. Maude.]

3.46 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause will replace the term "pensionable age" in the approved all- employee share scheme legislation with a new term, "specified age". The change will apply to schemes approved on or after Royal Assent. The effect of the change is to ensure that schemes approved after Royal Assent provide equal treatment for men and women.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Column 26

New Clause 12

Expenses of entertainers

.--(1) Section 201A of the Taxes Act 1988 (deduction of fees paid by entertainer to employment agency) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1)(a) after "subsection (2)" there shall be inserted "or (2A)".

(3) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2)--

"(2A) Fees fall within this subsection if--

(a) they are paid by the employee in pursuance of an arrangement under which a bona fide co-operative society agrees, or the members of such a society agree, to act as agent of the employee in connection with the employment,

(b) they are calculated as a percentage of the emoluments of the employment or as a percentage of part of those emoluments, and (c) they are defrayed out of the emoluments of the employment falling to be charged to tax for the year concerned."

(4) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)--

"(3A) Subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (co-operative society does not include profit-making society) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (2A)(a) above as it applies for the purposes of that section." (5) The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (4)--

"(4A) Subject to subsection (4) above, a deduction by virtue of this section as regards a particular employment and a particular year of assessment may be based on fees falling within subsection (2) above or fees falling within subsection (2A) above, or both." (6) The amendments made by this section shall apply for the year 1990-91 and subsequent years of assessment.

(7) Any such adjustment (whether by way of discharge or repayment of tax, the making of an assessment or otherwise) as is appropriate in consequence of this section may be made.'.-- [Mr. Maude.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maude : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. In the debate on the taxation of actors in Committee, I proposed a change to the relief that we introduced last year which allows actors and other theatrical artistes taxed under schedule E to claim tax relief on fees that they pay to theatrical agents. Those fees can amount to 10 to 15 per cent. of an actor's income and it is therefore a valuable relief for those starting out in the theatre.

It was not appreciated at the time, although we consulted with the industry's tax working group, that the provision did not cover the position of actors who, rather than employ a traditional agent, preferred to get together with colleagues and to form their own co-operative agencies. We did not intend that group to be excluded. Indeed, they represent some of the newcomers to the theatre whom we particularly wish to help.

New clause 12 extends the relief introduced last year to agency fees paid to co-operative societies. The new relief will apply to fees paid out of earnings taxed under schedule E where a bona fide co-operative society acts as an agent in finding work for a theatrical artiste. Fees up to the

Column 27

present limit of 17.5 per cent. of earnings can qualify for relief. On this occasion it seemed appropriate to back-date the new relief so that, as with the relief that we introduced last year, it will apply to fees paid after 5 April 1990.

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : We welcome new clause 12 and we will be happy to speed it on its way. We argued strongly during the Committee stage of last year's Finance Bill, and we argued strongly again this year in our deliberations upstairs, that the Government and the Inland Revenue were being unfair to actors, especially those who are just starting out in the profession in the switch from schedule D to schedule E consideration of their tax treatment which has taken place since last year.

As a result of our representations, and of those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on behalf of actors, the Government have sought to make some ameliorations to the new tax regime to which new actors are subjected. Last year relief was introduced for the agents' fees that actors pay up to a percentage limit. This year, the Government have gone a little further and, with the small step in new clause 12, they are giving relief where the agency to which an actor belongs is a co-operative agency. It provides some additional and welcome relief.

However, the Government have not gone far enough and they have yet to address a number of specific issues. We want the Government to restore the position that existed before last year. When we take over on the Government Benches, we will do that. In the meantime, we want to raise two matters. The first is the touring allowances that are paid to actors, and the second is the audition fees that are paid by actors, both of which deserve better consideration. We hope that the Government will now use their breathing space to consider those two further items. Agents' fees are one thing and co-operative agency fees are another, and the new clause is a welcome step on those matters. We want the Government to take some more steps to restore the position for actors who are not only a hard-pressed profession, but who form part of our heritage and part of our distinctive cultural strength, which we must preserve at all costs.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the alterations that we sought from him last year. Will he join me in congratulating the founder of the actors' co-operative in Lancaster, Mr. Stephen Allen, who has just become this country's Mastermind?

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I join in welcoming the new clause, which was admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. Most hon. Members will not take the threat of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) too seriously because one of the groups who have prospered in the past 12 years of Conservative government have been people involved in culture, the arts and literature. However, we agree that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that we have not gone far enough in restoring the position of young actors.

Will my hon. Friend take advice from our hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who might be able to get together a group of leading actors who could speak not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the many hundreds of young actors who each year are in the position that they were in when they started? It might then

Column 28

be possible to go further, either in terms of Inland Revenue procedures or in terms of next year's Finance Bill, so that new actors have the chance to come into the profession without adverse tax treatment.

Mr. Maude : I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) in her tribute to the new Mastermind, whose connection with the new clause I am glad to acknowledge.

I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley. When we discussed the matter in Committee, I said clearly that I would consider carefully whether practical steps could be taken to meet the pressing anxieties especially of those starting out in the acting profession. That examination is under way and I will pursue it. I made it clear in Committee that I was by no means unsympathetic to the points that had been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Investment exchanges and clearing houses :Stamp duty

.--(1) The Treasury may make regulations providing as mentioned in this section with regard to any circumstances which--

(a) would (apart from the regulations) give rise to a charge to stamp duty,

(b) involve a prescribed recognised investment exchange or a prescribed recognised clearing house, or a member or nominee (or member or nominee of a prescribed description) of such an exchange, or a nominee (or nominee of a prescribed description) of such a clearing house, or a nominee (or nominee of a prescribed description) of a member of such an exchange, and

(2) The regulations may provide that the charge to stamp duty shall be treated as not arising or (depending on the terms of the regulations) as reduced.

(3) Regulations under this section--

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons ;

(b) may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Treasury to be necessary or expedient ;

(c) may make different provision for different circumstances ; (d) may make any provision in such way as the Treasury think fit (whether by amending enactments or otherwise).

(4) In this section--

(a) prescribed' means prescribed by the regulations, (b) recognised investment exchange' means a recognised investment exchange within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986, and

Brought up, and read the First time .

Mr. Maude : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 17.

Mr. Maude : New clauses 17, 18 and 19 flow from the proposed merger of the London traded options market and the London international financial futures exchange,

Column 29

which, it is hoped, will take place later this year to form the London derivatives exchange. New clauses 17 and 18 give power to the Treasury to make regulations about stamp duty in connection with the proposed merger. At present, the traded options market is part of the stock exchange and present legislation reflects that. The merger of the options and futures markets will change that basic structural fact. The legislation will have to be adapted to fit the new exchange if the existing tax reliefs are not to be lost. We are giving careful consideration to exactly what changes may be required. Given that the new structures are not yet totally clear, it is not possible to form final judgments on that point.

The new clauses provide enabling powers so that we can make the necessary changes by regulation at the appropriate time.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : Before asking the Minister a brief question about the new clauses, I should like to advise him that the Opposition recognise the need for them given that the London derivatives exchange will be different and, unless the new clauses are passed, will operate under a different tax regime from the existing two institutions. As the notes on clauses state, the powers that will be sought and the regulations that will be applied are rightly wholly relieving, as the London derivatives exchange will be liable to extra tax without such relieving powers. We recognise, therefore, that the new clauses are necessary to ensure that the position does not change.

What does the Financial Secretary intend to do under the regulations? Does he intend to bring in new reliefs or does he intend that the position should be broadly the same? Stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax are due to be abolished in any case when TAURUS--the transfer and automated registration of uncertified stock--comes on stream, so I am not including that in my question. I should, however, appreciate any help that the Financial Secretary can give on this point.

Mr. Maude : I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that it is our intention simply to reflect existing reliefs in the provisions because if we did not make provisions, such as we are giving ourselves the power to make under the new clauses, under the merger that we expect to take place, the reliefs might disappear and would not be available. Our intention is simply to replicate the existing provisions as far as possible and to enable them to be applied sensibly to the new circumstances of the new derivatives exchange. Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Next Section

Home Page