HC Deb 13 February 1957 vol 564 cc1274-83

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South): On a point of order. I do not want to delay proceedings this afternoon, because of the importance of the Motion that the House, in due course, will have before it, but before we sanction the voting of this £39 million, which is a huge sum of money, hard-earned by our people, we are entitled to a more satisfactory explanation than we have had up to now.

My first question is: does any right hon. or hon. Member know why we are voting this £39 million? Will a representative of the Government get up and tell us why we are voting this £39 million?

Hon. Members

Answer.

The Chairman

If he does I shall have to stop him.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I am a little hard of hearing, Sir Charles. I want to keep in order. Will you be good enough to repeat what you have just said?

The Chairman

I said that if any member of the Government rose to answer the hon. Gentleman's question I should have to stop him. It would be out of order. If the hon. Member will refer to page 725 of Erskine May he will see that subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If you will also be good enough to read Erskine May, Sir Charles, you will find the following words in pages 724 and 725—I know that I am skating on thin ice—

The Chairman

Page 724 does not deal with the Committee stage.

Mr. Ellis Smith

No—but will you look half way down page 725, Sir Charles?

The Chairman

That deals with this very point. It says that subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed in Committee.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If I understand the position correctly, what we are doing under the Bill is giving the Treasury authority to allow the expenditure, and we can rely upon the military authorities using the principle of virement. It is time that somebody protested against the constant voting of this kind of thing so easily, in the way that happens now.

This week this country has been visited by a general who has been able to make a tremendous impact upon public opinion. The elected representatives of the House have not been given the opportunity, and time will be limited for debating the Motion this evening. Many of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies just as important as those represented by members of the Privy Council will not have an opportunity of speaking to the Motion, and I am taking advantage of this opportunity to raise that point.

If you will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th February you will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman "— that is, the Secretary of State for War— but we are lost in the figures which he is using."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 262.] Throughout that debate we never had a satisfactory explanation about this £39 million, and, even if I have to stand on my own, I say that before I agree to the Vote an explanation must be given about this sum of money. Since the end of the war the country has been under a terrible strain in keeping itself going, yet the military authorities can get away with huge Votes of this kind with hardly a word being said about it in the House.

The Chairman

If the hon. Member waits until the Third Reading he may manage to keep in order, but he cannot continue this argument in Committee.

Mr. Ellis Smith

That is good news, Sir Charles. That means that if we let the matter go now I shall be able to raise these points in the Third Reading debate.

The Chairman

I do not know whether I shall be in the Chair then. I cannot prejudice anything which Mr. Speaker may do. The hon. Member's argument might be in order then, but it certainly is not in order now. If he will leave it now he may have better luck in a moment or two.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I thank you for that, Sir Charles, but it is not a question of luck; it is a question of keeping in order. We are entitled to use our Parliamentary rights, provided that they are consistent with keeping in order, so that we may raise matters such as this. I am pleased to have your assurance that I shall be able to raise this matter during the Third Reading debate.

The Chairman

I did not give a definite undertaking. I said that it would be quite possible that the hon. Member would be in order.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has rendered a distinct service to our Parliamentary institutions by the action that he has taken this afternoon. If it were possible I should like to have the matter explained to the Committee, so that we could know exactly what is in order in the Committee stage of a supplementary Consolidated Fund Bill of this kind.

If I may be allowed a moment's indulgence—I do not want to delay my right hon. Friend unnecessarily—in the old days, and certainly ever since I have been here, the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill has also been used as an occasion upon which private Members can raise all manner of questions which are covered by expenditure. Indeed, the redressing of grievances has always been considered to be a condition precedent to the granting of Supply, which is the purpose of the Bill.

In recent years we have got more and more into the habit of getting rid of all the stages of all Consolidated Fund Bills by a formal Motion, taken on the nod, as it were, and then devoting the rest of the day to a discussion of one subject upon a general Motion. The result is entirely unsatisfactory for an ordinary private Member. I know that the Consolidated Fund Bill is exempted business and that we can go on all night if we wish.

The Chairman

Is this a point of order?

Mr. Silverman

Yes, Sir Charles.

It seems to me that a new kind of procedure has crept into our practice. The result is that Members of Parliament are no longer aware of what is and what is not in order at any stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill and, in particular, in Committee. We should all be very grateful to have the position cleared up.

The Chairman

I have already quoted from page 725 of Erskine May, and it is clear that subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed during the Committee stage.

Hon. Members

What Committee stage?

The Chairman

Subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed.

Hon. Members

What subjects?

The Chairman

Well, try and see.

Mr. Silverman

I think, Sir Charles, that we all understood, at the beginning of this discussion, that certain things could not be discussed. It was that which prompted me to question whether we could have cleared up what matters are in order to be discussed during the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill, or is nothing in order at all? Are we bound to say "Yes" or "No" without explanation and without reason?

The Chairman

I am quite willing to read the portion of Erskine May dealing with the procedure in Committee if hon. Members wish, but I am convinced that what I have said is correct and I think it would be a pity to delay the business.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I do not desire to prolong the proceedings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but so much is involved that I am forced to take a stand. I ask again: will a member of the Government explain to the House—now that we are in the House and not in Committee—why we are being asked to vote this £39 million? Up to now no satisfactory explanation has been given. If anyone is in doubt about that, I refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th February. Many hon. Friends of mine asked for an explanation on that date, and up to now we have not had one. If we are not to get an explanation, it will force me to prolong these proceedings and to inquire why we are being asked to vote this sum of money. Is anyone prepared to give an explanation?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The industrial people I represent will be working on piece-work rates to provide this £39 million in order to keep the country going. A general can come to this country and speak to the "white shirts," and say that we cannot afford reductions in this and that, yet anyone knows that the country has strained itself since the end of the war to an extent to which no other country in the world has done. It is time, therefore, that we had an explanation. If we do not get one, this Government will stand condemned, as no other Government have stood condemned, as being unable to explain even their own figures and the details about them which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th February: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are lost in the figures which he is using. My right hon. Friend was referring to the Secretary of State for War and the figures he had mentioned. The Secretary of State for War said: Those figures have not been given, and they rather complicate the position. He was dealing with the £39 million, yet he admitted, in the middle of a speech, that the figures he had presented to the House complicate the position.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say: However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figures I am giving are accurate and have been thoroughly checked. We are not to be expected to take it from the Secretary of State for War. We should have the figures accurately in the OFFICIAL. REPORT before we vote this £39 million. The Secretary of State for War went on: The difficulty is that in Vote 55 we had assumed that there would be a saving of £2.3 million… That cannot be shown … we have not made it. That is why I am asking for the extra money. Then we get the "tit-bit" of the lot. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) said: The figures before us are not realistic. None of us can be expected to understand them…". Many hon. Members seem to be prepared to vote this £39 million today, but it is admitted that no one in the House understands the figures. My hon. Friend went on: How can we argue about figures that are not real? Then my hon. Friend said to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—you were then in the Chair, because we were in Committee: Do you understand them, Sir Charles? The Chairman replied, "No."[Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew)

Read the next words.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I shall be very pleased to do that, but hon. Members have not yet given me a chance. The Chairman replied: No, I do not have to do so. As far as I am concerned, a supplementary Estimate not exceeding £39 million is being asked for. Note that the Chairman has not to understand the figures, but the House has to understand them.

Then my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said: All of us have a right to an explanation of the different totals as between these three papers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February. 1957; Vol. 564. cc. 262–4.] Are we to be forced to go through these Votes page by page? That is what it must come to, unless we have an explanation of them. We have been elected by the people and we arc entitled to ask for a satisfactory explanation before we vote this £39 million.

On Saturday, I had the privilege of being among some of the greatest surgeons in this country, and I know that they are smarting under a grievance. If they are smarting under a grievance, how much more must ordinary people be smarting because of the grievances they feel? They have much to complain of, and that despite the fact that since the end of the war they have worked hard to help the country to recover from the war, and have even had to do some more fighting, too.

It does not look as though the House will be given an explanation today of what this £39 million is for. I see that the Secretary of State for War has turned up now. [Interruption.] It seems as though I have made a mistake. My hon. Friends say that he has been sitting there all the time, with his head hung down. Since he has been here and has heard what has been said, will he now go to that Box and explain why we are being asked to give the Government authority to use this £39 million? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer."] Some of my hon. Friends say—I cannot believe this —that the Chief Whip, who is now sitting beside him, will not let the right hon. Gentleman get up. [Laughter.] Let us be serious. I should not think that the Patronage Secretary wants the Government to be put in the dock, as they will be unless we have a satisfactory answer.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

They are dumb instruments.

Mr. Ellis Smith

The whole question of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is raised by this matter, and to that is related the visit of the general this week. He can make a speech on the wireless, on television, but my hon. Friends are not to be allowed to make speeches on this subject in the House. There is more at stake in this issue than appears on the surface.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

It has sunk.

Mr. Ellis Smith

What I should like is some guidance from you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because I do not want to go through these documents page by page.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Hare)

It is very courteous of the hon. Gentleman to allow me to intervene. I think that most of his remarks have been extremely interesting, but not necessarily very accurate. I have been in the House from the moment the hon. Gentleman stood on his feet. I can assure him that I was not holding my head low all the time, and that it is obviously very erect at the moment.

Without wishing to break the agreement which has, I think, been made between the parties that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) should open the debate soon on the subject of defence, may I make this reply to the hon. Gentleman? He has been in the House a great deal longer than most of us, certainly longer than I have been, and I think he knows perfectly well what this is all about, that we had an extended debate on the Supplementary Estimate in Committee of Supply, and that that Supplementary Estimate, having been passed by the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means, and by the House, now goes into the Consolidated Fund Bill, that being the only way by which Parliament grants the money. The hon. Member knows about this far better than I, although he has been having a lot of fun this afternoon.

Mr. Ellis Smith

That is a serious reflection on the Chair, because the right hon. Gentleman can depend upon it that the Chair would not have let me go as far as I have gone if I had not been in order. I have had experience of this kind of thing, and I know how far I can go. It is only because I have kept myself strictly within the rules of order that I have been able to go as far as I have.

Despite that, despite the time we have spent upon this matter, we have not had yet a satisfactory explanation of why we are being asked to vote the £39 million. Are we to get it?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. Hare

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have already voted this money in Committee on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Ellis Smith

No, we have not voted it. If we had this Bill would not be before us. The purpose of this Bill is to enact that The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund … so the Government have not go their £39 million yet.

I know the military authorities all right. I have served in the Army. Because of that, and through being a Member of the House, I know the extent to which they apply the principle of virement. According to the Army Estimates, some of the £39 million is to be used to provide two divisions and a number of supporting units which are committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. This position is very unsatisfactory. For the second time in my lifetime we have won a war, and yet the Germans are in a position to treat us as they are treating us on account of the occupation of their country by our forces.

I know about our support of N.A.T.O. I am not now going into that, but in addition to the problem raised by the Germans and by the presence of our forces in Germany we are faced with this fact, that the military authorities are using their power for the purpose of putting this country in a difficult position.

A little while ago I was reading a history of Germany. It is one of the largest books in the Library. I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to read it. It states that the reason for the success of British democracy up to now is that it is the elected representatives of the people who determine policy, whereas in Germany it was the military cliques and the officer corps who determined policy. Slowly, but surely, a change is creeping into this country; slowly, but surely, it is the military who are determining policy. We have men like Lord Montgomery, in particular. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Speidel."] Then there is that other general who has just come over here. They are making an impact on British public opinion to an extent which ought not to be allowed to them.

Part of this £39 million is a contribution towards maintaining this North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and I ask the Government to give the House two or three days to discuss that and the future of the military organisation in this country. I ask them to give us that opportunity prior to the publication of the White Paper. I ask them to do so so that the elected representatives of the people can make their impact on policy, so that the impact of a visiting general may not be the only one to be felt.

Mr. Speaker

I do not see anything about all this in the Estimate which is the subject of the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If you would be good enough to look at the Supplementary Estimate, Mr. Speaker, and then turn to the back, you would see under Vote 2, pages 32 and 33 of the Army Estimates, that the points that I have just raised are included. It seems quite obvious—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is a little mistaken. We are not discussing the main Estimate but only the Supplementary Estimate, which was passed by the Committee.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing the £39 million which was, in the main, applied to the Suez war.

Hon. Members

Armed conflict.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Armed conflict, then. I beg pardon. although, in plain language, it was war.

Many other points about expenditure could be raised and I have taken advantage of this opportunity, after doing a bit of reading, to make the stand that I have made this afternoon. I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have tried to draw public attention to this matter, and to that extent I am satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Forward to