---

Finance Bill

The point is that even four hours would not have been enough to cover 72 clauses—yet back in 1992, those who are now in government complained that that was not enough time in which to debate 11 clauses. I have made my point about the lack of time. The people who look at Finance Bill proceedings—the outside interest groups—are concerned that this Bill is being rushed through and that insufficient time is being given to consider it. I do not know what the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) thinks a reasonable period would be. I do not believe that he has served on a Finance Bill Committee, although perhaps he will have that pleasure in the next Parliament, should he be returned. I can tell him that many days of detailed scrutiny are required, and even if every hour between now and Prorogation tomorrow evening had been available to us, I do not think that we would have made as much progress through the Bill as people would have wanted us to do. The danger is that the Bill will receive poor scrutiny. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said of the 2005 Finance Bill:""Huge swathes of complicated and often poorly drafted legislation have been passed into law 'at a stroke' with little or no debate and certainly no time for proper consideration and consultation. It calls into question whether parliament is fulfilling its constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation."" I suspect that the institute would not depart far from that opinion in respect of this year's Bill.