Table — Repeals — 29 Jul 1997
It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [yesterday], to put forthwith the Question on an amendment moved by a member of the Government.
Amendment made: No. 15, in page 95, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert--
'In section 76(8), the definition of "relevant franked investment income".'.
-- [Mr. Darling.]
Bill reported, with amendments.
Order for Third Reading read.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This debate concludes proceedings on the first Finance Bill of the new Government. The Bill goes a long way towards implementation of the manifesto commitments that we made prior to the election and resulted in our winning. It introduces a number of measures that are good for the long-term health of the economy. The measures that we have taken in the Budget and in our reform of the way the Bank of England fixes short-term interest rates will ensure that we have a stable platform on which to build for the future.
Before I deal with the merits of the Bill, I want to say a word or two about a recurring theme of the debate. Conservative Members referred to the guillotine and to proceedings on the Bill generally. We had the usual two days in Committee of the whole House, nine sittings in Standing Committee A and the best part of two days on Report. If there was insufficient time to discuss everything that the Opposition wanted to discuss, they haveonly themselves to blame. From our proceedings in Committee--both here and upstairs--it is obvious that the Opposition did not make the best use of their time.
For example, on Wednesday 23 July, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who has won the respect of all hon. Members on previous Finance Bills, and whose ability to speak without notes on any subject for any length of time the Whips care to allot him is unparalleled, was warned under Standing Order No. 42, which deals with "irrelevance, or tedious repetition", because he spoke for more than an hour on clause 43, which the Opposition did not even oppose.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) spoke for about an hour on a measure relating to the film industry that the Opposition did not oppose. We had a long discussion about the mother of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and whether she was Welsh. At one point, the shadow Chief Secretary told us about a tour that he had taken in various parts of the world. We had all sorts of discussions.
We know, because we had 18 years--rather too long--to practise, that it can be easy and tempting for the Opposition to filibuster and waste time when there is no matter of substance to discuss. Conservative Members and those who follow our proceedings outside the House have every right to expect that legislation should be studied line by line, but the Opposition did not put their limited time to good use in this instance. Some Labour Members believe that the Opposition's strategy all along was not to
29 Jul 1997 : Column 231
discuss the matters in hand, so that they would have some reason to complain afterwards. That is a matter for the Opposition.
It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [yesterday].
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
The House divided: Ayes 336, Noes 168.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||0||133 (+2 tell)||0||83.3%|
|Lab||335 (+2 tell)||0||0||81.0%|