Finance Bill

We are debating two principles this evening. First, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) raised what might be called the constitutional principle. I understand that and I will be interested in the Government’s response. Secondly, we are considering retrospection. I understand the principle that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) enunciated. However, he has got it round his neck when he tries to give practical examples. That also applies to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), with her ridiculous argument about consuming a bottle of whisky. They both fail to differentiate the purchase of a physical artefact—whether a tie, a bottle of whisky or a car—and the delivery of a service. For example, if the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford looks back, he will realise that, when the Conservative Government, contrary to their electoral promises, raised the VAT rate markedly, that higher rate covered services, which were delivered after the change in the VAT rate, even though the agreement for providing them was made before the increase.