---

Mr. Davies : I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will concede that it had nothing at all to do with the amendment but everything to do with the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). You know that it is not my habit to run away from points made by hon. Members

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It must be the habit of the hon. Gentleman to take note of instructions from the Chair--two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Davies : I take the view of the Chair.

I shall return to the point that I was making at the beginning of that series of interventions. Although it is important for the House to be concerned about the broad strategy of fiscal policy--which is of enormous significance to the economy and the country--it is also extremely important for Parliament to be able effectively to scrutinise the details of any legislation, including those of the Finance Bill.

Those of us who were in the private sector before we came to this place know that the devil is often in the detail. One thing that we do in the private sector when we are signing or proposing to sign a contract is read the detail. Surely that principle must apply as much to the Finance Bill as to any aspect of law making.

The Labour party has made it easy for me this afternoon because it has tabled an amendment that, by general agreement, is technically deficient or would produce a complete perversity if passed because we would end up with less time for parliamentary scrutiny, not more. Therefore, I have no dilemma at all, morally or otherwise, and I can say with great enthusiasm that I shall vote against the amendment. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have had a further opportunity to discuss the broad issues of principle that have been raised in this debate.

Mr. Dorrell : We have had a wide-ranging debate on this subject this afternoon. The question before the House is relatively narrow--it concerns the consequences for parliamentary procedure of the move to a unified Budget, which was announced by the former Chancellor in the 1992 Budget.

---

Column 858

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and other hon. Members expressed support for the principle of a unified Budget. The hon. Gentleman even let slip the phrase that he was "enthusiastically in favour of" at least this aspect of the Government's approach to budgetary matters. I am grateful for that support and I share the enthusiasm that has been expressed on both sides of the House.

As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the principal purpose of moving to a unified Budget is to ensure that debate of the budgetary proposals--whether revenue or expenditure oriented--tabled by the Government is better informed and takes place against the background of a recognition of the fiscal realities that any Government face. It is important to be clear that we are talking about the introduction of a unified Budget. None the less, it is a Budget that will be presented to the House as the Government's proposals and for which the Government will then seek the support of the House with regard to taxation and expenditure. We are not adopting the ideas that have been discussed for many years for a green Budget. When the Finance Bill is published, it will not be in the form of a consultative document--it will be the Government's proposals, for which we shall seek the support of the House and Parliament as a whole.

Nor are we moving in the direction of splitting the traditional Finance Bill between technical measures and tax rate questions--a distinction that some people who are interested in the subject have sought to draw. That distinction is easier to describe in general theory than to recognise in precise practice. It would also lead to two Finance Bills passing through what is already a crowded legislative programme, which is not a proposal that the Government find attractive.

We are talking about a specific Government proposal that the revenue and expenditure aspects of the budgetary process should be brought together into a single process of government during the late summer and autumn of the year and a single process in Parliament that is based on the presentation of the unified Budget in late November or early December.

Against that background, I refer to the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East for consideration today. He said that he did not understand why the Government felt it necessary to include in the Finance Bill specific proposals for changing the operation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. He asked why we had to move so quickly : why could we not simply leave things as they are and see how they work in the new world? As I explained in an intervention in his speech, simply leaving things as they are is not an option because if the existing Provisional Collection of Taxes Act were allowed to operate without amendment it would have the effect of curtailing significantly the time available for parliamentary debate.

5.15 pm

It is therefore incumbent on the Government to propose changes to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act to preserve the scope for proper parliamentary debate. The policy steer that has led to that provision being included in the Bill is that we are seeking to replicate in the new world the provisions for parliamentary scrutiny that have existed until now. Essentially, we are replicating the status quo. As I said in an intervention on the hon.

---

Column 859

Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), we are replicating the status quo but, in so far as we are changing it at all, we are changing it in the direction of extra parliamentary time.

I shall go through the proposed changes to demonstrate to the Committee that the effect of the changes is not, as is suspected in some parts of the House, to curtail debate but simply to replicate the existing arrangements and marginally to increase the time available for debate.

First, I shall examine this subject from the point of view of the change in the total time between Budget day and the day on which the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act authority expires. Under the old system, over the past six years we have seen Budget days vary between the latest date of 20 March and the earliest date of 10 March. Let us say that, on average, Budget day in the old world was fixed at 15 March. Although we originally said that the new Budget day would be some time near the end of November or the beginning of December, we have since refined that to place the emphasis on the new Budget day being at the end of November. Therefore, I take it as a working hypothesis that the new Budget day will be 25 November.

The difference between 15 March and 25 November is roughly three months and 20 days. We have brought forward the anticipated Budget day by roughly three months and 20 days. Our proposal is to bring forward the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day from 5 August to 5 May. That brings it forward by exactly three months. Therefore, we are bringing forward Budget day by 20 days more than we are bringing forward the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day, the consequence being that the gap between the two dates is 20 days longer than it is under the present arrangements. That does not lead to a curtailing of parliamentary debate.

The second stage of the argument is that hon. Members say that the calculation takes no account of the effect of recesses on the time available for parliamentary scrutiny. Let us examine the effect of recesses on the lengthened time that will be available between Budget day and the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day. Under the existing system, between 15 March and 5 August we must accommodate the Easter recess, which normally rTaylor) referred to time in August which is, in reality, no longer available for parliamentary scrutiny because most hon. Members would receive extremely badly the suggestion that Parliament should sit into August.

The effect of the existing arrangements is to take out of the time available for parliamentary scrutiny one and a half weeks at Easter, one week at Whit and a further week at the end of the process--a total of three and a half weeks. Under the new arrangements, we shall continue to have to accommodate the Easter recess in one and a half weeks, and the Christmas recess, running probably to three weeks. So there will be four and a half weeks of recess time--an increase in the amount of recess time falling between Budget day and PCTA day of roughly one week. Of the 20 days extra time available, on a crude analysis one week or seven days is taken by extra recesses, leaving an additional 14 days--13 on the precise mathematics--available for parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : Let us be clear what we are quarrelling about. Our fear is that under the new structure the Finance Bill will not be published until after Christmas

---

Column 860

and that there will be unstoppable pressure to complete the Committee stage before the Easter recess. If the Financial Secretary can say either that the Finance Bill will be published before Christmas--so that we and interested parties may study it over Christmas-- or that the Government will be willing to continue the Committee stage after the Easter recess, our objections will be met.

Mr. Dorrell : I made it clear in Committee, and I repeat, that I cannot give an assurance that in all circumstances the Finance Bill will be published before Christmas. Nor can I give an absolute assurance that in all years, however late Easter falls, the Committee stage will continue after Easter. What if, for example, Easter fell at the end of March? It does not seem inconceivable that the Committee stage could continue after an Easter day falling in March. The key point is that we must leave time after the Committee stage for Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House and due time for the Bill to be considered briefly in another place.

If the PCTA date is moved to 5 May as the Government propose, it does not seem to follow that in a normal year Third Reading in this House need be at any time before 30 April. So if the procedure in this House is to close on 30 April and Easter is in March, it is clearly possible to encompass a final week in Committee in April and Report and Third Reading in time for the process to be completed by the end of April.

I had intended to deal with that point by considering the timetable. The third perspective on the timetable is that under the existing arrangements the Finance Bill has been published in recent years roughly on 15 April. In practice, under the existing arrangements we must complete Third Reading in this House by 25 July, which is three months and 10 days. Under the new arrangements, even if the Finance Bill is published after Christmas--it would be published about 10 January--I do not think that in normal circumstances it would be necessary for us to complete Third Reading in this House before 30 April.

Under the new arrangements, therefore, the time between publication and Third Reading would be three months and 20 days, whereas under the existing arrangements the time between publication and Third Reading is three months and 10 days. On that analysis, roughly 10 days more parliamentary time would be available for considering the Finance Bill than there is under the existing arrangements. I have not sought to argue that under our proposals there will be massive extra time for parliamentary scrutiny. I argue that they broadly replicate our present arrangements and that, in so far as they amend them, they do so by increasing the effective time available for consideration of the issues in this House by making available anything up to 10 days of extra parliamentary time. On that basis, I commend the Government's proposals to the House.

Question put , That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 236, Noes 293.

Division No. 328] [5.24 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adams, Mrs Irene

Ainger, Nick

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Armstrong, Hilary

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry

Barron, Kevin

---

Column 861

Battle, John

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, Andrew F.

Berry, Dr. Roger

Betts, Clive

Blair, Tony

Boyce, Jimmy

Boyes, Roland

Bradley, Keith

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Burden, Richard

Byers, Stephen

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Cann, Jamie

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Clapham, Michael

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Corston, Ms Jean

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davidson, Ian

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Dowd, Jim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Etherington, Bill

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Galloway, George

Gapes, Mike

Garrett, John

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Godsiff, Roger

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Grocott, Bruce

Gunnell, John

Hain, Peter

Hall, Mike

Hanson, David

Hardy, Peter

Harman, Ms Harriet

Harvey, Nick

Heppell, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Kate

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Home Robertson, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hutton, John

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Adam

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Jamieson, David

Janner, Greville

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Jowell, Tessa

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Kirkwood, Archy

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Litherland, Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Llwyd, Elfyn

Loyden, Eddie

Lynne, Ms Liz

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

Macdonald, Calum

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

McNamara, Kevin

Madden, Max

Mahon, Alice

Mandelson, Peter

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Martlew, Eric

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Milburn, Alan

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

---