I beg to move Amendment No. 332, in page 3, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 5 and insert—

'(a) is made within such reasonable time and in such appropriate form and manner, and

(b) contains such relevant information, and

(c) is accompanied by such available evidential documents'.

Clause 3 gives relief from VAT to "do-it-yourself" builders—at least, that is what the marginal note to the clause says—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Members please stop their conversations and listen to the right hon. Gentleman?

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. Since the amendment relates to "do-it-yourself" matters, I was trying to do it myself and make myself heard.

It is strange that Clause 3 introduces Clause 15A into the Finance Act 1972 but puts another marginal note to the new clause, namely,

"Refund of tax to persons constructing new homes otherwise than in the course of a business".

We are therefore dealing, not with the amateur who builds for himself, but with a person who may well build voluntarily for a member of his family or a relative—perhaps a bungalow for grandpa at the bottom of his garden.

The amendment deals with regulations under which the refund of tax may be claimed. It therefore deals with subsection (2) of the new Clause 15A. Subsection (2) gives the Commissioners of Inland Revenue very wide and very vague powers to make regulations—too wide and too vague. When the House gives a Minister power to legislate by order, it should take the greatest care to define that power carefully and to specify clearly its limitations, particularly when the power is given, not to a specific Minister, but, as in this case, to the commissioners. The power should clearly relate to the purpose for which it is given and it should go no further than is necessary for that purpose.

That is why in the amendment I propose that when a person claims relief of VAT because he is building a dwellinghouse and he is not in the trade of a builder he should be required only to make the claim within reasonable time, that he should be required to make it in appropriate form and in appropriate manner, that he should be required to give only relevant information, and that he should be required to submit with it only available evidential documents.

If the power to make regulations went as wide as it does in the Bill it might nullify the right to relief by requiring impossible or impertinent information or non-existent documents. Secondly, it might be objectionable by prying into family arrangements under which the dwellinghouse is being constructed.

I put the case shortly, but it is a matter of constitutional importance because the power of delegated legislation should be specifically defined in any parent statute.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for the dispassionate way in which, as usual, he has moved the amendment. Like the passage in the Bill which it seeks to replace, the amendment has three paragraphs. I join the right hon. Gentleman in the sentiments he expressed in respect of the first two paragraphs. The requirements that the claim be made in a reasonable time, that it be made in an appropriate form and manner and that it contain relevant information are not matters I wish to dispute with him. It is self-evident that that is the manner in which the regulations made by the Commissioners would run. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that assurance from me, to reassure him I will spell out certain safeguards that are available.

However, when one comes to paragraph (c) one runs up against difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to import into the Bill that the documents shall be both available and evidential. By introducing a restriction of that sort the inference is to be drawn that a claimant could submit a claim for an amount substantially in excess of that for which there was documentary supporting evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman ponders that for a moment I am sure he will see that it would make the task of Customs and Excise in policing claims for refunds under the Bill a virtual impossibility.

The amendment requires that documents accompanying a claim should all be evidential—to use his word. Customs would intend such a requirement to apply to the bulk of the documents. However, in certain circumstances Customs might require supplementary information to deal quickly and economically with a claim. Here again I must part company with the right hon. Gentleman.

All regulations for claims would have to be made by means of a statutory instrument which would always be subject to the negative procedure of the House. If the House were not satisfied that the regulations required that the claim be made in reasonable time and in proper manner and that it contained relevant information, it would always be open to the House to negative the resolution.

I hope that I have said enough to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no issue between us on the first two-thirds of the amendment. The last part probably goes rather wider than the right hon. Gentleman intends, and I cannot recommend it to my hon. Friends.

I appreciate the Financial Secretary's endeavour to approach the amendment in a reasonable fashion. It is not one of overwhelming importance but nevertheless it goes to some practical points to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention.

I cannot advise my hon. and right hon. Friends that I am satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply. He seeks to reassure us by saying that paragraphs (a) and (b) are unnecessary becauses they will always happen anyway, which is a good reason for accepting that part of the amendment. The Financial Secretary went on to assert that paragraph (c) could lead to inflated claims being made and let through. I see no reason to join him in reaching that conclusion.

He says that the form presently contained in the Bill is necessary to enable supplementary information which might be required by the authorities to be delivered. That again does not follow. Any supplementary information could be obtained under subpara (b) of the amendment. In those circumstances, the important point raised by subpara (c) of the amendment cannot be dealt with sufficiently merely by asserting that the negative resolution procedure will allow this House to deal with the matter properly.

If the business of the Government coming before this House continues to be handled as it has been so far, we can place little reliance on the validity of the negative resolution procedure for protecting the rights of citizens. In those circumstances, I must advise my right hon. Friends that the assurances given by the Financial Secretary are quite insufficient and invite them to join me in supporting the amendment.

I beg to move,

That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

That motion being moved at this time of night is quite unnecessary, extraordinary and intolerable. We have had a series of useful debates on important aspects of these early clauses. We have a number of further amendments down to Parts I, II and IV which have to be considered before we have to move on to consideration of Part III and the capital transfer tax.

In the light of what the Leader of the House said earlier it is plain that on no possible footing could we be ready to move to consideration of Part III before Wednesday. He told the House earlier today that there was available to hon. Members by that stage a full set of the amendments tabled to Part III. I rushed out with excitement to look for them, only to find the same rag-bag set of Xeroxed documents and nothing else, with no semblance of order about them—most of them, indeed, without numbers. It is quite wrong even for this Leader of the House to suggest that it would have been possible to move on to consideration of Part III during tomorrow.

In those circumstances, by the standards set by the Leader of the House himself, we would be able to take, as we should take, the rest of today and all of tomorrow to consider Parts I, II and IV. We are perfectly prepared, as we should be, to proceed tonight, through the night if necessary.

Quite apart from the provisions being debated on Part I, we shall be coming shortly to the attempt by the Government to reintroduce their changes in the level of investment income surcharge in Clause 5—an attempt which was rightly defeated last summer. They were not prepared to accept that as a defeat but are seeking yet again to introduce that provision, without considering the changes we suggested

There is no reason for these proceedings to be adjourned at this stage. We cannot understand what possible reason the Chief Secretary can have for this motion. If I may suggest a reason, however, it is that the Government themselves are so beset by their ignorance and lack of preparation of the amendments that they are seeking to make to Part III that they need all the time that they can get between now and dawn tomorrow, not to consider the amendments which we should now be moving but to make some kind of sense and order of the important proposals which they are still in course of tabling to Part III.

All this is a quite intolerable procedure. My hon. Friends are here, ready and willing to proceed to discussion of the amendments now on the paper. I suggest that we should have absolutely no use for the motion but should declare our willingness to proceed to further debate, through the night if necessary, on this Part of the Bill.

It is very odd to find the Government moving a motion of this sort at this stage. It is normally the Opposition who move such a motion, and I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends for not having done so hitherto. During all the proceedings in Committee there was only one motion to adjourn the proceedings, although we had five all-night sittings. This is ample evidence of the Opposition's desire—nay, determination—to ensure that enough time is given to consideration of the Bill, without dilatory motions.

It is absolutely amazing that the Government should at this stage move a dilatory motion themselves. We have hardly started on consideration of the Bill, and already they seem to have no stomach for the fight. If necessary, we could provide camp beds as we did in Committee for Government supporters who do not feel able to withstand the all-night sittings which would be necessary to make progress with the Bill.

I very much want to get on to the capital transfer tax. I believe that with a little bit of a late night tonight and a normal sitting tomorrow we could deal with Parts I, II and IV easily by tomorrow night. That would leave us three days for consideration of the capital transfer tax.

11.30 p.m.

I have made only one short speech in the debate today so far, for the reason that I wanted to see the House make progress towards Part III. It would be only right and proper to give the Opposition the opportunity to continue the debate tonight so that we can dispense with another 10 or 12 amendments and then we could complete the earlier parts of the Bill by tomorrow night, leaving the House fresh and clear to start on the capital transfer tax on Wednesday.

If the motion is accepted by the House, that will not be possible. It means that the Opposition, having put themselves out, got their amendments tabled and accepted the extreme inconvenience of having to discuss amendments which are not properly tabled, which are not on the printed Order Paper and which they have not had time to consult about, are now to be stopped.

The Government's handling of the Bill has been one of the great parliamentary disgraces of the century. I hope that the Leader of the House, who apparently has been attending other functions, will not feel proud of his conduct of the Bill. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels a bit ashamed of himself, because this is the first time he has listened to a debate on the Bill since he introduced Clause 17 a month ago and discovered that the private sector did not plant all the oaks and that one did not have to have a tenancy of one's mother-in-law if one asked her to live in one's house without it being charged as a chargeable transfer.

The Chancellor has never understood this tax. He has never taken any part in the proceedings on this tax, and it is to me quite revolting that the two right hon. Gentlemen come along to the House tonight to adjourn our proceedings at this stage when my right hon. and hon. Friends have been working through the day trying to improve the Bill, as we worked in Committee trying to improve it, and then, just because the two right hon. Gentlemen are tired and they think it is time to go to bed, they move a dilatory motion.

A dilatory motion is normally the weapon used by an Opposition, and I shall not say anything more on it now. I know that my hon. Friends will not listen to me, but I advise them all not to talk on this motion but to ask the Government to withdraw it so that we may make progress on the Bill, as we have always sought to do, and complete Parts I, II and IV by the end of tomorrow night, and then we can proceed in an orderly fashion to capital transfer tax. For the Government now, having mucked up their amendments and got their Bill badly drafted, to come and filibuster the Bill by moving a dilatory motion is the last straw.

This is the most extraordinary motion for the Government to bring forward at this time of the evening. We had 135 hours in Committee, and not one debate was closured in Committee. We were constructive in Committee. We have been constructive today. Nobody could say that the last motion was filibustering. I moved it in about three minutes. We had a short reply from the Financial Secretary and then we divided. We want to get on with the Bill. Apparently the Government do not.

Will the Chief Secretary, the Leader of the House or the Chancellor of the Exchequer come clean with the House? What is the plan behind this? Is it intended that we should spend a very long time on Parts I, II and IV so that we do not reach the capital transfer tax, which we want to debate, or is the plan in some way to curtail us by a guillotine? May we be told?

Is it not disgraceful for the Chief Secretary to put a motion of this kind to the House at such a very early hour of the evening without giving the House any explanation of the reason why he is moving it?

Ought not either the Chief Secretary or the Leader of the House to tell us plainly why the Chief Secretary is moving the motion tonight? Why is there no explanation why the motion has been moved? Why is it that after the Chief Secretary himself complained about the three-hour debate earlier today he is now saying that there should be no further debate this evening? The Opposition are very happy to go on debating this all through the night, and we regard it as typical of the contempt and arrogance with which the Government Front Bench treats the House that it should seek to curtail our debate without any explanation.

Will the Chief Secretary tell the House exactly what he has in mind for the future timetable for debating the Report stage of the Bill? Will he tell us clearly, and without equivocation?

rose—

The man with 11 votes.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has always been very good at humour. I have all the time in the world, and if he can find anybody to laugh at him tonight he will be lucky.

I want to recapitulate. The Leader of the House—we are glad to see him tonight; obviously he is surprised to find himself here—promised us five days' debate on Report. Subsequently a legion of amendments were put down by the Government as well as by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They were published only a few days ago—some of them were published only today—without any adequate time either for people in this House to consider them or—the Leader of the House has persistently ignored this—for many people outside the House who are interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why jeer at that? Many people outside the House who live in this country are under the mistaken impression that they have some rights which will be respected by the House of Commons and the Government. They have still to learn the bitter lesson that they are wrong, and that under this Government they have very few rights.

The concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that no adequate time has been given, first, to consider the ill-conceived proposals of the Government and, secondly, to give mature consideration to amendments proposed in considerable haste and in respect of which there is no ground for confidence that they are well-founded. After a few hours of the Report stage promised by the Government, they suddenly move this motion, with an apparent air of disappointment. Anyone would think, reflecting upon the way it is done, that they have endured too many hours of discussion on the Report stage. But not at all. The answer, of course, is under a very thin gossamer veil. Here is the horror. The fact is that the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends have already put into the Table Office a Finance Bill (Allocation of Time) Motion.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, if he had sought to be candid with the House—which of course he did not—in the course of moving the motion, might have told the House what the Government's intention was. But he did not. He sought to conceal it.

indicated dissent.

It would be hard for us to believe that the right hon. Gentleman had been kept in the dark by his colleagues as to the existence of this new motion. Although we know that he is not aware of a great deal, we nevertheless are prepared to credit him with knowledge of his colleagues' intentions.

Now I turn to the very disagreeable subject of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.

Make it short.

I wish I could. I must tell the Leader of the House, from whom is always expected some show of responsibility and concern for the rights of the House as a whole, that when he achieved the high position that he now has, very few of my right hon. or hon. Friends had a lot of confidence but we hoped for the best. In the face of this shabby and ill-conceived manoeuvre, we have none at all. We believe that he has manifested not only his own character but his own total contempt for the House of Commons and his utter lack of concern for those who do not agree with him and who do not endorse his rather unpleasant views. [Interruption.] If the Leader of the House wishes to interrupt me, I shall gladly give way. But I must tell him now—and I speak for everyone on the Opposition side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that we have no confidence in his judgment and less in his good faith.

rose—

Why did you not—[Interruption.]

It would be appropriate if the House attempted to conduct itself more peaceably.

The Government Front Bench is treating the House with considerable contempt. We are entitled to an explanation from somebody on the Treasury Bench in support of the motion. [Interruption.] We do not need an explanation by the comrade from Bolsover.

Only last Thursday we heard from the Leader of the House how anxious he was to get his business through by 14th March. Now, although we have been discussing these matters for only a short while, the Chief Secretary has moved a motion without a word of explanation. Perhaps the Chief Secretary is embarrassed by this situation. I should not be in the least surprised if he were embarrassed, although he shakes his head in denial. However, even if he is embarrassed, the House is entitled to a statement from the Leader of the House.

In my 15 years in the House I cannot remember a Leader of the House who treated the House with such contempt as this one has. He has been thoroughly unsympathetic to the interests of back benchers. Instead of coming here tonight wearing his black tie and yawning his head off, as he has for the past few minutes, he should have sought to explain—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members opposite waving at me and threatening me. I have no anxiety to prolong these proceedings. I think that the proceedings arise in a disgraceful way. If hon. Members continue to make such signals at me, I shall treat them with the contempt they deserve. Let them wave at their floosies but not at me.

I hope that the Leader of the House, having behaved as he has over the past week, will now have the good grace to explain to back benchers on both sides what he is up to.

The Question is, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since the Question has not been put—

Order. The Question has been put.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can you say that the Question has been put when you have not collected the voices from either side of the House? Neither side of the House has been able to assert either "Aye" or "No".

As there appears to be some belief that the voices were not collected, I shall put the Question again.

No.

For this Question to be the subject of a vote when we have not heard one word of explanation from the Government and when a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have put question after question—

Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressing the Chair on a point of order?

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My first point of order is that hon. Members should be invited to resume their seats. My second point is that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary moved the motion with unusual brevity for him—

Order. It is impossible for the Chair to hear the point of order if other hon. Members are speaking.

The motion has been moved. It is before the House, not as a result of any action by the Leader of the House or the Government, but because the Government have tabled a timetable motion—in short, a guillotine motion. They have made manifest the reasons why they are seeking to move the motion for further consideration. When are the Government going to come clean with the House and say something about the time table motion?

There appears still to be a misunderstanding. I have put the Question—

No.

I was in the process of putting the Question, and that is what I intend now to do.

rose—

The point I am raising is this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Question ought not to be put until we have heard a word of explanation from the Leader of the House.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may address the Chair at this stage only on a point of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only reason you get so far in the process of putting the Question was that my hon. and right hon. Friends were waiting in the confidence, albeit with a misplaced confidence, that the Minister would attempt to justify what we regard as gross misconduct. We all have great sympathy with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your difficult position, but we very much hope that you will allow every opportunity for a Minister to put the Government's point of view, or alternatively, allow the debate on this motion to continue uninterrupted.

Answer.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would certainly hope to make a statement on the Adjournment when this motion has been carried.

No.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If a timetable motion has been placed before the House, ought we not to have an announcement to that effect before the Adjournment motion is moved?

rose—

Order. I wish to reply to the earlier point of order.

rose—

The question was asked whether the Leader of the House would make a statement. He has made that statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has promised that he will make that statement after this motion has been dealt with.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has said that we must vote first and then he will give his reasons afterwards.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] When the House has managed to calm down a little and when Labour Members realise that this is the House of Commons and not the Reichstag—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—perhaps we may make a little progress. How are hon. Members expected to understand the issues on which they are to vote when the Leader of the House says that he will not make a statement or an announcement or give any indication of what is involved until after the vote has been taken? Surely that is a total and complete disregard of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shut up."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not put the Question.

May I try to assist the House in this difficult matter. When I put the Question, I did not finish the proper procedure by saying "The Ayes have it". That is where the mistake arose.

One point which the Leader of the House made absolutely clear was that it was his intention, in a matter as contentious as this, to absorb the time of a back-bench Member on the Adjournment in order to explain, if it is explainable, the tortuous course adopted by the Government. I say with great respect that there is a duty upon the Chair to protect the rights of backbenchers against the depredations of Ministers who take up their time in order to explain, at a time when there may be only minutes available.

That is not a matter for the Chair.

You have very helpfully given an explanation of what went wrong when you put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that the Leader of the House had made a statement, at the request of my hon. Friends and others. It is within the recollection of all my hon. Friends that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would say something later. I do not know whether that, in your judgment, fairly constitutes a statement, but you clearly had a view that the right hon. Gentleman had made his commitment to the House as a whole. I am not clear what it is that the right hon. Gentleman will give an explanation about.

That will become apparent when the time comes.

rose—

Order. I wish to make it quite clear that when I put the Question but failed to collect the voices there was no hon. Member on his feet. That is where the misunderstanding lay. I now propose to put the Question.

No.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you how, after you had, in your own words, started to put the Question, you then relented and allowed the Leader of the House, not rising on a point of order, to speak to the House?

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Chair had assumed that the Leader of the House was rising on a point of order.

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is it for the Chair to presume, when the Leader of the House, who knows about the procedures of this House, rises—not on a point of order—that the right hon. Gentleman is rising on a point of order? The right hon. Gentleman has not done so and I suggest that the debate ought to be continued—

Order. I have put the Question.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

(seated and covered) I was in the middle of a point of order to which I have not had an answer. How can it be correct—

I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer. I believed that the Leader of the House was rising on a point of order.

(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can it be, when the Leader of the House—the holder of the rules of order—does not rise on a point of order, that the Chair presumes that that is what he is doing? If the Leader of the House makes a mistake we, the minority, have a right to your protection.

The answer was, as I said previously, that there was no right hon. or hon. Member on his feet at the time when I originally put the Question.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is simple. I am a Member of this House and I could not hear what was happening. I could not hear even by listening to the microphones in the seat. I do not think it is right for these proceedings to commence at all. My group could not hear what was happening. We do not know what is happening because of the noise in the Chamber, because there was no order being kept. That is my point of order. I would like to hear an answer.

The microphones must not be strong enough for the hon. Lady.

(seated and covered): That is a very bad answer.

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this extraordinary announcement by the Leader of the House mean that my Adjournment debate, on behalf of my constituents, will be lost?

No. Not in any way.