| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
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
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:
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
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--
"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.
"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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |