§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 10.11 p.m.
The ChairmanI must warn the hon. Member that there are technical difficulties about debating this. Supply has already been voted by the House and the Committee cannot override or amend the decision of the House. The sole purpose of this Clause is to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money voted in the way Parliament orders.
§ Mr. RobinsonI am happy to assure you, Sir Gordon, that it is not our intention to ask the Committee to amend the Clause or the Supply which has already been made, but there are certain problems about this Bill, which is not, of course, the normal type of Consolidated Fund Bill we are used to discussing at some length. I gather that it refers entirely to the Pilkington award to the doctors. We had a rather brief discussion on the Supplementary Estimate which gave rise to this Bill. In that discussion a number of questions were raised by right hon. and hon. Friends of mine. To some of those questions there were answers given. I am not sure that they were altogether satisfactory. Indeed, to some of the questions no answers were given at all.
§ Mr. RobinsonWith great respect, Sir Gordon, this Clause authorises the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund the sum of £42,877,600. As I understand it, that sum represents the annual figure of, in round figures, about £11½million plus the sum of about £31 million which represents arrears of pay 166 arising out of the back-dating of the Pilkington award. Surely, if it is to be possible for us to ask questions and to receive answers in connection with this award, it would seem that this Clause is the Clause on which those questions should be raised. Clause 2 is only giving the Treasury power to borrow.
The ChairmanI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it is clearly laid down that expenditure cannot be discussed on this Clause.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)Is it not in order to ask questions about this? We are being asked to authorise this expenditure. Surely we may ask questions about where it is going, the exact direction?
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)Would you kindly indicate, Sir Gordon, what we are supposed to be doing, what we are being asked to do, and why?
The ChairmanThe purpose of the Bill is to give authority to the Lords of the Treasury to make payments which the House has already approved. This grant of £42,877,600 was approved in Committee of Supply on 5th December and the Resolution was agreed to by the House on 20th December. Therefore, the Clause authorising this sum cannot be amended and
according to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.This is in Erskine May, page 748.
§ Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)On a point of order. Would there be any consequence at all from the defeat of the Bill? If there is no difference whether the Bill is passed or defeated, there is no point in discussing it.
§ Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)The first words of the Clause say that "The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund." Would I be in order if I argued, or if the Opposition Front 167 Bench argued, that this money should come not from the Consolidated Fund but from another source?
The ChairmanAccording to Erskine May
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed; and debate on the amount of the sum to be issued, or an amendment to reduce it or to alter the date or time for which the issue is to be made, is out of order; on those clauses, the object of which is to ensure the application of the grants made by Parliament be the objects defined by the resolutions of the Committee of Supply, debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation…
§ Mr. MellishSurely it would be perfectly in order, in view of the Ruling, to argue that this money should not come from this Fund but from other sources, and to argue how the money could best be found other than from the Consolidated Fund.
§ Mr. MellishIt is in the Clause. That is the point.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerThe discussion of the destination of the Fund would be out of order, but you did not say, Sir Gordon, that discussion of the source would be out of order.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerWhen you ruled what would be in order, Sir Gordon, you definitely said that discussion of the destination of the money would be out of order, but you refrained from saying that discussion of the source would be in order.
The ChairmanI never explain what is in order but simply what is out of order. The source is provided by Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, which has been approved by the House, and this Committee cannot alter that.
§ Mr. RobinsonFurther to that point of order. You said two things in accordance with the Rulings, Sir Gordon, and I should like a further explanation. First, you said that something was according to present practice. This rather suggests that this is not a rule of the Medes 168 and Persians. Can you tell the Committee how long this has been the present practice and whether we need to be bound by this practice indefinitely? On page 747 of Erskine May, there is a sentence which I do not think you read out in the course of describing what we could or could not discuss on the Clause. Erskine May says:
…debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation.…I was hoping to direct my remarks towards the principle of appropriation. It seems to me that if we cannot in any way—
The ChairmanI might answer one point first. As regards the practice, these rules have been established by long practice. They have been honoured by the House at least since the beginning of the century in some cases, and in many cases earlier than that. As to the second point, this is not an Appropriation Bill. The hon. Member has been misled.
§ Mr. RobinsonWith great respect, if I may complete this point. I am reading a passage in Erskine May which refers to Consolidated Fund Bill procedure in Committee which is precisely relevant to the debate we are endeavouring to have at the moment.
The ChairmanI am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member again, but that applies to the Appropriation Bill which we have later on. It does not apply to this particular Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr, Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)I understood you to say, Sir Gordon, that we can discuss the principle of the Bill. Surely we shall be discussing the principle of the Bill if we discuss the origin.
§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)As I understand it, we have assented to the words in the preamble and "cheerfully granted" that the sum of £42,877,600.
§ Mr. RossThis was a preamble to my point of order. We have done that for a specific purpose, to which I understand we have also agreed. Would I be right 169 in arguing and insisting on Clause 1 that the money be spent for that purpose and that purpose only?
§ Mr. RossI am sorry, my last remark did not carry and I am afraid you heard me only when I was out of order. Would I be right in insisting that the money be used and used only for the purpose for which it was granted by Parliament? Will I be in order then?
The ChairmanThe purpose of this Clause is to ensure that the money will be used for the purpose authorised by Parliament.
§ Mr. WillisMay I continue the debate on the Clause, Sir Gordon? I was referring specifically to the Clause and to none of the matters which you have ruled to be out of order. I suggest that this Clause is badly worded. The Clause says, "The Treasury may issue". You have just told us that we have approved the expenditure of money for specific purposes. It seems to me to be quite wrong that the House of Commons should give a permissive power to the Treasury. I suggest that the word "may" is quite wrong and that the word should be "shall". After all, the House of Commons has made a decision and it would be quite wrong for it now to give power' to the Treasury not to carry out what the House of Commons has said must be done.
The ChairmanOrder. I am afraid the hon. Member has proposed an Amendment to the Bill and we cannot have an Amendment.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is arguing that this is a badly drafted Clause. I have not heard him suggest that it should be actually amended. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury could possibly get us out of the difficulty if at this stage of the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part" he made a statement. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has very courteously come to the House obviously in order to answer questions on the Bill, and I am sure he is disappointed that he is unable to answer some questions put 170 hitherto. Perhaps, he can explain why the word "may" is in this Clause and whether it indicates that there are other methods the Treasury can use in order to obtain this money. If he could give us a further explanation of the purpose of the Clause, perhaps we could come back to other matters on subsequent Clauses or at later stages of the Bill.
The ChairmanI hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not do that, because other matters would be out of order.
§ Mr. Hector HughesBefore the Financial Secretary replies to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—if he intends to reply—there is a further point to be raised. My hon. Friend has made the point—
§ Mr. WillisI have not finished yet.
§ Mr. Hughes—that the Clause is badly worded because it is permissive, the word used being "may" instead of "shall." That is perfectly clear. My hon. Friend's point is that the Clause is badly worded—
§ Mr. WillisOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. I am sorry, but I do not quite understand exactly where we are in our proceedings. I sat down because a point of order was raised. I do not know whether the points of order are continuing or what is happening.
§ Mr. WillisI was not proposing an Amendment, Sir Gordon. I was discussing the Clause and suggesting that the language was not suitable and did not give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed by the Ways and Means Resolution which has been passed. In view of that, the Government ought seriously to reconsider the Bill and its withdrawal. They may wish to withdraw it after I have finished, because I wish to draw attention to another set of words in the Clause:
supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year…What does "the service of the year" mean? Should it not be "for the service for the year"? There seems to be some 171 slipshod draftsmanship in the Clause. Should it not read "for the service for the year"? Otherwise, I suggest—
The ChairmanI am afraid that the hon. Member is now trying to move an Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I quote a Ruling. It was given on 26th March, 1913. The Chair was asked whether, because it was the rule that amendment of the Clause was impossible, it was impossible to discuss questions which might have been the subject-matter of an Amendment. The Chairman replied:
The hon. Member has quite correctly apprehended the Rule."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1913; Vol. 50, c. 1679.]
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. Surely it is not an Amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is suggesting. He is raising a point that goes to the very root of the Clause, and that is surely something which one is entitled to discuss on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." He is not trying to move or dreaming of moving an Amendment. He knew that that would be out of order. He is going for something which is really radical to the Clause. He has raised two points which are radical to the Clause. He has referred to the words "may" and "shall." Surely that is a matter that goes to the principle of the Clause, and surely it must be in order to raise that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. Surely, with all respect, your Ruling cannot be correct. You have already ruled that it is in order to discuss what is in the Clause but not to discuss what is outside. My hon. Friend sought to criticise the wording of the Clause. He did not—
§ Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)On a point of order. I wonder on whose authority it is stated that we have no 172 right to discuss those matters. Is it Erskine May? Who is Erskine May? [Interruption.] Is it not the case, Sir Gordon, that we had a decision taken or a vote taken on a Question only the other day, and that vote was treated with extreme contempt? In those circumstances, can we not take it that there is no established precedent of this House that cannot be challenged?
The ChairmanThe hon. Member is quite wrong. There is the authority of previous decisions of the Chair.
§ Mr. LawsonOn a point of order. What protection have we from the Chair itself—
§ Mr. LawsonOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. If we have no confidence in the Chair—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. JaySir Gordon, may I put the point of order that I was attempting to put to you when you intervened—I think under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was criticising some of the words contained in this Clause. You intervened and argued that it was not in order for him to do that because it was not in order to move any Amendment to the Clause.
My hon. Friend was not engaged in moving an Amendment to the Clause. He was criticising words contained in the Clause. If we are to have a Ruling that it is not in order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part", to criticise words in the Clause which might in other circumstances have amounted to an Amendment, although an Amendment is not, in fact, being moved, surely, on that Ruling, it would not be in order to criticise any words in any Clause on the Question, "That the Clause stand part". That is obviously to reduce our proceedings to an absurdity. I submit that, whatever else is in order or out of order on this rather peculiar Bill, it really must be in order to do what my hon. Friend did on the Question, "That the Clause stand part". And may I submit 173 to you, Sir Gordon, that if hon. Members opposite would be a little quieter our, proceedings would go a little more quickly. What I am arguing is that it must be in order, on this Question, "That the Clause stand part", to criticise the words actually contained in the Clause.
The ChairmanWhat the hon. Member may not do is to argue—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] —an Amendment to the Clause—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. JayIf I may say so, Sir Gordon, that was very helpful to us. May we assume that you agree that, although it is not in order to do that, it is in order for my hon. Friend to criticise the words actually contained in the Clause?
§ Mr. RossOn a point of order. In view of the fact that this is the Committee stage of the Bill and that there is another stage, the Report stage, in which we can amend the Bill, would it not be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) —after all, who knows just exactly when this Bill will finish, and whether or not there will be Amendment, even from the Government point of view, before we finish—
§ Mr. RossI was asking whether or not it would be in order to argue that it would be better—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. MellishOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. As I understand it, what you have said is that we cannot discuss the words that are actually in the Clause, we cannot discuss the money concerned in the Clause, and we cannot discuss the Fund to which the Clause applies. With very great respect, would you be good enough to tell us what we can discuss?
The ChairmanThat is a fair point. According to previous practice, this Bill is not debated on Committee stage.
§ Mr. MellishFurther to that point of order. The last thing I want to do is make more difficulties, but are you now trying to rule that this Bill is not even debatable?
The ChairmanI shall quote from Erskine May concerning the difficulties of debating it. It states:
The enacting words of the bill are not open to amendment. According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonThis is the whole point, Sir Gordon, of what we are trying to discuss. This is an abnormal occasion —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] This is an abnormal occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am about to explain why, if hon. Members opposite will keep quiet. The Bill relates, however indirectly, to the National Health Service, and discussion on the Service, because of recent action by the Minister of Health, has taken on an abnormal character—
§ Mr. RobinsonI am sorry, Sir Gordon. I was led astray by hon. Members opposite. If Erskine May says that the Committee stage normally passes without debate, then, by implication, that means that there can be circumstances in which debate can arise. If I may say so with respect, it would help the Committee if you could indicate what those circumstances are in which debate could arise.
§ Mr. WillisFurther to that point of order, Sir Gordon. If we think that this Clause is wrongly drafted, that there is an error in it, surely we are allowed to point that out to the Government? Otherwise the Committee will be passing a Clause that might be incorrect. Surely the Committee must have an opportunity to correct an error? It is pertinent to the remarks I have made, and certainly, on a later Clause, I want to point out what I consider to be a typographical error.
§ Mr. RossSurely that is the very point, Sir Gordon? You have put the Question, "That the Clause stand Part of the Bill." We are in the ridiculous position that we can either vote for it 175 or vote against it, but we are not allowed to say why we are voting for it or against it.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerAre you telling us, Sir Gordon, that, if there were a major typographical error, or a "not" were put in or left out, it would be impossible for the Committee to correct it? I understand you to be saying that. I submit that when Erskine May says "normally" he means "normally", and that he means that there may be abnormal and unusual circumstances, such as a drafting error, which must be put right in the interests of the Bill, otherwise the word "normally" does not seem to have any meaning.
It seems to me that if it is impossible for the Committee to correct an error, or what it regards, or some Members regard, as an error, we are in a wholly impossible position. We might be compelled by your Ruling, or the Rulings of your predecessors, to pass something that makes nonsense.
The ChairmanProvision to correct errors exists. That is the well-known practice of the Committee. Printers' errors cannot be discussed now.
§ Mr. JaySir Gordon, will you elucidate a little further the reply you gave a moment ago? You were asked by my hon. Friend what would be the abnormal conditions in which it would be possible to debate this. I understood you to answer: "If there were other Clauses in the Bill." According to my reading, there are three Clauses. We are now considering Clause 1, and therefore apparently those conditions obtain, in which case, on your Ruling, it would be in order to discuss this Clause.
My second point is this. The words of Erskine May on page 748 are:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a Bill is formal and normally passes without debate.I submit to you that Erskine May would not have inserted the word "normally" in this sentence if it had no meaning. If it were the case that it was contrary to the Rules of the House for the Clause to be debated, Erskine May would have said so. On any ordinary reading of that sentence, I should have thought 176 that the word "normally" meant "usually." Though it is possible according to the rules of the House for a debate to take place, according to Erskine May at the date, whenever it was when this edition appeared, it was not usual for it to do so. But if it is in order and in accordance with our rules, but not usual, then it is possible for the Committee, if it wishes, to do something which may be unusual but which is legitimate.
The ChairmanNo. The word "normally" applies where you have an Appropriation Bill with other Clauses than there are in this Bill. We cannot, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," debate the text of Erskine May.
§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)Sir Gordon, you said in your original Ruling that one thing which we could discuss on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," was the principle of appropriations. I understand that you were quoting the words of Erskine May on the preceding page to that quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
If that is the case, would you be good enough to tell us what, in your opinion, in these circumstances, would circumscribe the argument of the principle of appropriations? You intimated that we could not debate the destination of these moneys. I understood from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North said that there must be doubt about the origin of these moneys. In view of the contradictory remarks from the Chair, would you like to make a definitive and positive statement of the principle of appropriations which Erskine May allows us to discuss at this stage of the Bill?
§ Mr. MellishSir Gordon, as I see the position, you are ruling, and understandably so, on the great precedents of this House set down by this character called Erskine May. The point is that you are now ruling that because in the past Bills of this character were never formally debated we cannot now debate this one. With respect, surely our Parliament can and must on occasions decide whether the previous Rulings should be continued.
177 The Minister of Health is present, not just to look in but to listen. You have said that there can be no debate. Surely that is making a farce of democracy. On an issue of this kind we ought to be given some understanding that, within the bounds of order, and recognising that in the past a formal debate was never allowed, on this occasion we have a right to discuss what is now in the Bill. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we ought to be allowed to discuss, first, the Consolidated Fund itself, and, secondly, the amount of money involved.
I am not concerned with the wording I do not believe that the wording of this Clause counts in any way. It is the intention of the Clause that counts. I hold the view that it is the intention of the Clause that counts, and the Ruling that you have given, based as it is on great precedents, nevertheless does not hold good today because this Bill is to all intents and purposes, not the sort of Bill which Erskine May envisaged. It is a Bill that is abnormal in many ways I therefore submit, with great respect to you, Sir Gordon, that the time has come when, within the compass of the Question, "That the Clause stand part," we ought to discuss the meaning of the words, the objective and purpose of the Clause, bearing in mind our earlier proceedings in the House when we agreed to this sum of money. That is another reason why we should be allowed to debate what is to happen to the money, and why the Bill is necessary. If the rules of the House of Commons are such that we cannot debate the Bill, the Government have no right to bring a Bill like this forward. This makes absolute mockery of even producing a Bill. We might as well have asked the Leader of the House to sign it privately and not even trouble us with it. No Bill can be presented to the House of Commons without Members who are elected having the right to question it and argue about it.
10.45 p.m.
I recognise that within the limits of previous precedents we should be concerned not with Amendments and words but with the principle of the Consolidated Fund. Against that background and in the light of all that has been said, will you, Sir Gordon, consider withdrawing from the idea that, because Erskine May 178 tells us that it is usually or normally taken formally, it must be so taken? This is not normal. We cannot accept it as being formal. We believe it is a most important Bill. With respect, I ask you reconsider the matter.
The ChairmanI am bound to carry out the rules and decisions of the House. I cannot alter my Ruling.
§ Mr. WillisSir Gordon, am I in order in asking whether the Government are satisfied that the words to which I have drawn attention carry out that which the House of Commons wished to be carried out when it passed the Ways and Means Resolution?
§ Mr. WillisMy point of order is this. I drew attention to certain words in the Clause. I should like to ask the Government whether the words in the Clause do what the House of Commons wished to be done. It is surely in order to ask whether the Government are satisfied that these are the correct words.
§ Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)On a point of order. Sir Gordon, would you be so kind as to inform the Committee on what occasion the House of Commons in Committee voted away its right to debate a special Consolidated Fund Bill of this kind? We know that Erskine May records the customs which may have arisen in the House of Commons, but I ask you as the Chairman of Ways and Means to tell us now on what occasion the House of Commons in Committee voted away the right to debate the Clauses of a special Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. SwinglerWhen?
The ChairmanThere are numerous decisions. I cannot argue with the hon. Member about them. The point is that this matter has already been decided by the House of Commons and cannot be altered by the Committee.
§ Mr. SwinglerI asked you when, Sir Gordon.
§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)If a decision has been taken on the Bill by the House of Commons and 179 as a result of that decision we cannot discuss the Clauses of the Bill, will you explain to me, Sir Gordon, why the Bill is before us tonight? If, as a result of previous decision on the allocation of this money, we are not now able to discuss it, it seems that the procedure of bringing the Bill before the Committee is to no avail. Can you please tell us why it is, Sir Gordon?
The ChairmanThe House took its decision on 20th December and the Bill is to enable the Lords of the Treasury to issue the money in accordance with the wishes of the House.
§ Mr, Jack Jones (Rotherham)On a point of order. I look upon you Sir Gordon, being Chairman of Ways and Means, as the foreman in charge of these proceedings. Here we have a gang of men wishing to go to work. We have spent 35 minutes listening to the foreman in charge telling us what we may not do. That is unusual in Britain where the men usually tell the foreman what they will not do. Can you tell us by what means the gang may get to work and what it is that we can discuss instead of what we cannot discuss? What may we do?
§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)On a point of order. You have suggested, Sir Gordon. that we might be able to get to work by passing Clause 1 and then proceeding to later stages of the Bill, but our difficulty about passing Clause 1 is that hon. Members do not appear to have followed your Rulings about what is in order on the discussion of the Clause. I wish respectfully to submit to you one or two reasons why the Ruling which you have given so far might be a little narrower than the traditions and practice of the House in Committee in fact require.
In that connection, I refer first to the passage in Erskine May which has already been quoted:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.I submit two points on that. First, "present practice" is clearly not the same thing as the strict rules of the House.
§ Mr. StewartWe will pass, then, to the other point. It is said that the Bill normally passes without debate. There is no doubt to anyone who has experience of the drafting of Acts of Parliament that if a phrase like "normally passes without debate" is used, there is unquestionably admitted the proposition that there are occasions on which it is debatable. It is therefore not in the same position as, say, the Motion, "That the Question be now put," which is not debatable.
§ Mr. StewartWith respect, that has not been explained. That is why my hon. Friends are puzzled and why we are not able to make the progress with the Bill which we could wish. I must repeat that since Erskine May clearly says that the Committee stage normally passes without debate, it is clear that there is at least a debatable Question. It is not comparable with the Motion, "That the Question be now put," which is always and in its own nature undebatable. This is a debatable Motion, but one which the House in Committee normally allows to go through without debate.
You have also suggested, Sir Gordon, that our debate is limited by the fact that this is not an ordinary Consolidated Fund Bill, but a Consolidated Fund Bill relating to a particular service. It is therefore relevant to consider what Erskine May tells us about the matters which have been considered to be in order on Consolidated Fund Bills of this limited kind. We are told—and I draw this to the attention of my hon. Friends who are in doubt as to what they may say—
As an illustration of this rule, it may be mentioned that discussion has been permitted on the state of Europe, so far as it depended on the conduct of the executive government, including, for example, the use made of the naval forces"—
The ChairmanI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but that is not relevant to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. StewartWith great respect, Sir Gordon, I am referring to the passage in Erskine May on what is relevant for discussion on limited Consolidated Fund Bills.
§ Mr. StewartSir Gordon, your Ruling was given to us on the basis that this was a Consolidated Fund Bill of a limited nature. I am drawing your attention to the fact that although, according to Erskine May, we cannot discuss the constitution of Great Britain, the House of Lords, the tenure of land in Ireland—
§ Mr. Stewart—although we cannot discuss those things, we can discuss, or have discussed, the state of Europe and the use of naval forces. Further—
The ChairmanOrder. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the Second or Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. StewartMay I then draw your attention to another point, Sir Gordon? The objection is raised—and this, I think, applies not only to the Second and Third Readings but to the Committee stage of the Bill—that this is a Consolidated Fund Bill of limited scope, and that for that reason my hon. Friends find it difficult to say what is in their minds. But is this a Consolidated Fund Bill of limited scope? We are told so, but there is nothing at all in the Bill to limit the scope or the purposes for which the money is being—
§ Mr. StewartWith respect, that cannot be so. It is in Clause 1 that the point I am making appears. Clause I says clearly:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty…a certain sum of money. The whole point is that Clause 1 simply authorises the Treasury to issue that sum of money. It does not authorise the Treasury to issue it only for a specific purpose. What 182 I am surprised at is that there is nothing in Clause 1 limiting the right to issue that sum of money for the specific purposes for which we all know this Bill is intended. But really, if the rules of order are to be based on the assumption that this is a Bill for a specific purpose, we are entitled to ask, particularly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," why there is nothing at all in Clause 1 limiting the Bill to that specific purpose.I am not proposing an Amendment to Clause 1; I am partly raising a point of order and partly giving reasons why the House should not pass Clause I. The main point of order that I am making is that you have attempted to limit what hon. Members may say on the ground that this is not a general Consolidated Fund Bill but one limited to a specific purpose. I say that there is nothing in the Bill anywhere, and particularly not in Clause 1, where, of all places, we should expect it to be, limiting this grant of money to any purpose whatever. So far as anyone can tell from reading the Bill, this money could be issued out of the Consolidated Fund Bill for any of the services for which the Government are responsible. Unless we can have a proper explanation of that from the Treasury. it seems to me impossible to maintain that this is other than a general Consolidated Fund Bill, and argument may, therefore, range over any of the services to which, under the Bill, this money might be devoted.
§ Mr. StewartBut, as we all know very well, Sir Gordon, a Ways and Means Resolution has not the force of law except for the Ways and Means Resolutions commonly known as the Budget Resolutions which have the force of law only for a certain period by virtue of a Statute, the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. There is no Statute giving force of law to any Ways and Means Resolutions other than the Budget Resolutions. Therefore, if the courts were interpreting this Bill, they could not take into account any Ways and Means Resolutions which may have been passed before the Bill came before the House of Commons. We are in the Bill giving the legislative authority.
§ 11.0 p.m.
The ChairmanThe Ways and Means Resolution is
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of 42,877,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. StewartThat is exactly my point, Sir Gordon. There is not a word in that or in the Clause to tell us what this money is being granted for. It is no good saying that the purpose for which it will be used can be limited by Ways and Means Resolutions because what the Treasury has power to do, and what the courts will look at, is to be found in the Bill when it becomes an Act. For all that appears in Clause 1 or any other Clause, this is a general Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. MellishI recognise that this is a difficult task for you because of the precedents which you are so strictly trying to follow, Sir Gordon, and what I have to say I offer in an effort to break through the difficulty. You will have realised that this is a matter on which hon. Members have certain views to express.
In the normal way, when we have a Committee stage of a Bill, any Bill, we put down our Amendments, we have our debates, and eventually we reach the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Those of us who still do not like it protest and argue about it. On this Bill, that is the sort of thing, I think, that some of us would like to do. I say frankly that I should like to argue whether the Consolidated Fund is the right sort of fund. Also, I wish to argue not whether the sum should be more or less but the merits of the sum involved.
I am just coming to the essential point, Sir Gordon. You are my favourite Chairman of Ways and Means. You have said, following precedent, that there is usually no debate on the Bill. What I submit, with respect, is that we cannot in 1961 decide that the Bill cannot be debated and throw the thing away like that merely because some Ruling was given in 1913. This would be idiotic. It cannot possibly be. At some time, we ought surely to debate the matter.
184 As my hon. Friends have pointed out, there are three Clauses in the Bill. This matter is important. Why is the Minister of Health here? Why is the Financial Secretary here? Are they present to listen to the formal passage of this stage of the Bill? Surely, we should have a ruling that we should proceed on the basis of what is before us in 1961.
§ Mr. JayMay I suggest a way out of the difficulty? You have ruled that the debate on this Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," must be extremely limited because this is a very peculiar and special sort of Consolidated Fund Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and other hon. Members have shown that there is nothing in the terms of the Bill or the Clause or anywhere to link this Bill and the powers for which the Government are asking with any particular form of expenditure. I believe that many hon. Members are extremely puzzled about how it is possible for us to legislate and vote, as we are apparently asked to do, considerable sums of money without any limitation put on the way that they should be spent.
My suggestion is that the whole of the difficulty—this has a bearing on your Ruling, Sir Gordon—could be elucidated and, perhaps, overcome if the Financial Secretary, who has come here tonight, presumably, to throw light on topics of this sort, were to explain why he is asking for money in this Clause with no particular reference to any form of expenditure while at the same time we are told that debate is limited because the form of expenditure is most particular. If he could explain that, we should be able to make progress, I think.
The ChairmanThe debate is limited because this Committee cannot overrule the decision already made by the House.
§ Mr. MellishWould it be right to say, Sir Gordon, that as you are now ruling, even if the Financial Secretary 185 to the Treasury wanted to get up and say something to us, you would not allow him to rise?
§ Mr. MellishIf you allowed him to rise and make a statement, surely that is against the very precedent you have quoted that you would not allow any debate. Now you tell us that you would allow him to rise, and I suggest that he might do so since he is here and ready to do so.
The ChairmanI cannot stop hon. Members from rising, but when they speak they might be out of order. Then it is my duty to tell them so.
§ Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)Further to that point of order. You have just suggested, Sir Gordon, that the Committee cannot overrule a decision that the House has already arrived at. Eventually, you will be putting the Question on the Clause. The Committee will be asked to vote upon it. Suppose that the Committee, in its wisdom, decides to reject the Clause. What will be the situation then?
§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)On a point of order—
§ Mr. SwinglerOn a point of order—
The ChairmanI have given my Ruling. I am bound by the rules and I cannot hear any more points of order on the subject.
§ Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)On a fresh point of order, Sir Gordon—
§ Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)I very much regret, Sir Gordon, as we all do, that we should have had to spend such a long time on points of order. I assure you that this was not our wish. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly not [Interruption.] We wish to discuss the really important issues, and I am astounded that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the watchdog of the public purse, should have displayed—
§ Mr. GaitskellI quite agree, Sit Gordon. I was interrupted in the course of what I was saying. I am sure you will agree that when an intervention, and a rather rude one, is made, one is entitled to make a brief reply to it. That is all I was doing. I was merely saying that I was astounded that the noble Lord showed such little interest in the expenditure of this large sum of money. We will think very little of him when in future he raises questions concerning public expenditure.
I wish to put this to you, Sir Gordon. You have explained to us exactly what the rules of order, according to Erskine May, are. We recognise, of course—
§ Mr. GaitskellAs set forth in Erskine May. I assume that you were not quoting from some unknown document.
§ Mr. GaitskellThis is an interesting new development. I am not aware that it is usual to quote anything else. However, as it happens, what you have said to us is in keeping with pages 747 and 748 of Erskine May and I do not wish to challenge that. I do, however, submit this. Erskine May lays down that when it is a matter of procedure in Committee on Consolidated Fund Bills of a limited kind, there are a number of things which may not be raised in debate. It is set out in page 747. Then, as you have said, the paragraph ends on page 748 with the sentence
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.If this were intended to mean that no debate was allowable, surely Erskine May would have said so. There are, of course, a number of Motions which we consider in the House which are put to the House, or to the Committee, which are not debatable—we all know that. For example, the Report stage of a Ways and Means Resolution and the Closure Motion, if it is accepted—
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)It always is.
§ Mr. Gaitskell—are not debatable. Obviously, if that had been the case with that Committee, Erskine May would have said so. Erskine May does not say that, but, after putting certain limitations on what may be said, says that
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without a debate.It is our submission that there is a big difference between something which is debatable, though it normally passes without debate, and something which is not debatable at all. With great respect, what my right hon. and hon. Friends have felt so far is that they have not been able to express an opinion at all because it has been treated as though this were a non-debatable Motion. I am sure that that was not your intention when you proposed the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Of course you did not mean that. Obviously, if you had meant that you would not have allowed any of us to speak at all but would have put the Question. You did not do that. You invited, by refraining from putting the Question, hon. Members on either side of the Committee to get up and speak; but if they get up to speak, presumably there must be many things which it is in order to say.I think, with respect, some of the things which have been said are in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made an extremely relevant point, I thought. He raised the whole question of the relationship of this Bill and the Ways and Means Resolution. We do not expect you, Sir Gordon, to answer that. We do not see how you could. It is not your business.
We do expect the Government to answer it. How can it possibly be said they would be out of order in answering a question of this kind? In these circumstances, I am sorry, but we must really ask for a reply to the points my hon. and right hon. Friends have put. I think they are valid. You have been kind enough not to rule them all out of order. In these circumstances, I hope you will allow debate on the narrow issue. There will be other opportunities, I suppose, on Third Reading. I think I heard you say there were things which would be much more debatable on Third Reading. There are things on this Clause which are important. If the Financial Secretary can be allowed to speak—I think he is 188 rising to his feet—I hope we may be allowed to hear him. We should like to hear him on this. Then we can, no doubt, get on.
The ChairmanThere are great technical difficulties about debating this matter. A difficulty is that we cannot overrule the decision of the House. Therefore, the debate is extremely limited, and limited to the fact that we would authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money in the way Parliament has ordered.
§ Mr. RobinsonOn a point of order. You have said again, Sir Gordon, that we cannot overrule a previous decision of the House, but surely, as one of my hon. Friends said, it is possible to vote against the Clause, and that would in fact be overruling the previous decision of the House. I think most of my hon. Friends find it very difficult to equate that fact with your Ruling. I wonder if you could help us on this matter?
§ Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West); Which previous decision?
§ Mr. RobinsonFurther to that point of order—
§ Mr. PopplewellWhich decision of the House are we discussing? We are discussing a Ways and Means Resolution—
§ Mr. PopplewellWhere does it say that in the Clause? I listened very attentively to know exactly which Ways and Means Resolution we are referring to. There is nothing in the Bill—
§ Mr. CallaghanOr on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. Popplewell—or on the Order Paper which informs me which decision we are discussing. You have ruled, Sir Gordon, that the discussion must be very limited. Indeed, it is questionable whether we can discuss anything at all. I think we—
§ Mr. PopplewellFar be it from me to want to debate it. I am seeking information as to what we are discussing.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. GaitskellI think you said that it was not possible for the Committee to overrule a previous decision. This puzzles me because, as one of my hon. Friends has already said, supposing the Committee were to reject this Clause. In due course you will be putting the Question, and it will be possible to divide upon it. Suppose the Clause were to be rejected: are you saying, Sir Gordon, that that would be nonsense? Surely that cannot be so. If, nevertheless, it were to be taken seriously, that would mean overruling a previous decision.
The ChairmanThe Committee cannot overrule the decision of the House. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that. if Clause 1 is defeated, then we go on to Clause 2.
§ Mr. GaitskellI am very glad to say that is a point on which we would agree with you, but nevertheless it leaves open the rather peculiar situation that the Committee would have decided to reject Clause 1, thereby overruling, presumably, the decision taken by the House when it debated on Report the Ways and Means Resolution. I was asking you what would be the situation. We would certain go on to Clause 2, but would the Bill be valid in those circumstances?
§ Mr. GaitskellIn that case, perhaps this little interchange has cleared up confusion, in my own mind, at any rate, concerning what you said about the Committee not being able to overrule the House. Clearly it can at least contradict the House.
The ChairmanIf the Committee does not agree it will refuse permission to the Lords of the Treasury to make the payment.
§ Mr. GaitskellWe can agree that that is a distinction without a difference and leave it at that. I do not wish to quarrel 190 with you any further. You were kind enough to say what we could discuss on this Clause, and that was very helpful. You said we could discuss whether the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund this sum of money for this particular purpose. If that is the case, it clears the issue a great deal. I think there is a lot we can discuss on that. My hon. Friends, having clarified the situation, can argue on the point you said we can argue on. Would you be kind enough to read out the words again so that my hon. Friends can take note of them and keep in order?
The ChairmanThe sole purpose of the Clause is to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to apply money voted by Parliament in the way Parliament has ordered.
§ Mr. MellishCould I speak against the Lords of the Treasury applying such money?
§ Mr. FernyhoughMy hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had the floor until these points of order began. I think it is now time that he was permitted to resume his speech.
§ Mr. WillisI have no wish, of course, to occupy the time of the Committee. All I was seeking to do was to question the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he was satisfied with the words to which I drew attention. Perhaps, in view of the long period between my former remarks and now, I might be allowed to draw attention to them again. It is first of all in regard to the word "may"—not Erskine May, but the Treasury "may"—
§ Mr. WillisI did ask you specifically whether it was in order to ask the Financial Secretary and the Government whether they were satisfied that this Clause did what the House wanted to be done, and whether they were satisfied that these words were correct. On that occasion, I understood, you said it would be in order, and now I am asking the Financial Secretary to reply to my question.
§ Mr. MellishMay I put this further point to you, Sir Gordon? You said that in a Bill of this kind there can only be a limited discussion. You said this to 191 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I recognise that and accept it, but if you rule that there can only be a limited discussion you cannot also rule that there can be no discussion at all.
The ChairmanThe hon. Member must speak to the Motion. He seems to me to be questioning the decision.
§ Mr. MellishOn the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", may I raise a question regarding the Treasury? If I am in order I shall be very happy. This is what my hon. Friends want to know. I do not believe that the Treasury ought to be allowed to issue moneys out of the Consolidated Fund; I do not believe that, because I believe that the Fund is the wrong fund for this purpose. Secondly, which is a simple political point, I do not trust the present Treasury.
It seems to me, therefore, that when we are discussing a Clause of this kind the whole question comes up of whether moneys of this kind ought to come out of a Consolidated Fund of this description. The Treasury controls this Fund. I hope that we shall hear more from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about this, but I want to make perfectly clear that I do not believe that moneys of this kind ought to come out of this Fund. I make that point because I do not believe that this is the right way. I believe that there are other ways in which moneys could be found in a proper manner. Now that we are over this initial hurdle—that I do not trust the Treasury and I do not believe that the Consolidated Fund is the appropriate source—perhaps we can hear my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).
§ Mr. K. RobinsonI think that we have now sorted out the various matters raised in the last hour. Those that are relevant and can be discussed under the Clause are not many but they are important. Before the Financial Secretary speaks, I should like to reiterate one matter that was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). It is most extraordinary that we have been discussing with the Chair for an hour what we may or may not 192 discuss under the Clause, on the basis that this is a Consolidated Fund Bill of a special nature.
§ Mr. RobinsonI must apologise if I am a little confused by the very large number of Rulings which have been given from the Chair, some of which seem to me a little self-contradictory. But I understand that this was not a normal Consolidated Fund Bill but a special one and that therefore special considerations applied to what was debatable under it.
The ChairmanIt is not an abnormal but a smaller Bill. I was trying to distinguish it from the general Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. ManuelIt is obvious that the Committee has got into extreme difficulty. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have tried to raise points within the limited scope which you have indicated, Sir Gordon, without managing to be in order. Could you at this stage loudly and clearly indicate to the Committee what would be in order under the Clause?
§ Mr. RobinsonIf I may return to the point, I should like to refer to Erskine May, which on page 746 says:
Thus, whereas the field of debate on the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year and upon the Appropriation Bill is normally commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy"—
The ChairmanIs the hon. Member going to argue points of order or is he going on to discuss the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?
§ Mr. RobinsonI am trying to put a point to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and was in the process of doing so when you called me to order, Sir Gordon. I am now trying to justify putting the point to the hon. Gentleman and trying to support what I said by quoting from Erskine May about the distinction between this type of Consolidated Fund Bill and the main Consolidated Fund Bill of the year. I thought that some of the difficulty that we are in arose from that distinction.
What I am asking the Financial Secretary is why the Committee is not informed of the purposes for which the 193 sum of money is required. It is simply presented as the sum of £42,877,600. If we are limited to the purposes for which the money is required, should not the Bill somewhere tell us the purposes for which the money is required? This is a very simple point, Sir Gordon, and one which I am sure the Financial Secretary, with your permission, would be very pleased to explain to the Committee.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonWithin the context of the Ways and Means Resolution that we passed in Committee on 20th December last year, I want to draw attention to the word "eight" in page 1, line 20 of the Bill and ask whether this is in conformity with the Resolution that we passed. At that time the Resolution was based on our deliberations on 5th and 6th December, and in those deliberations —I presume that this is the reason why the Minister of Health is here—we were given various assurances as to the total sums of money involved, which, according to what we are told by the Government in presenting this Bill today, amount to £42,877,600. I want to know whether this includes the sum of £500,000 to which reference was made by the Minister of Health during our discussions on 5th and 6th December—
The ChairmanOne of the things which is quite clear is that we cannot on this Question discuss expenditure.
§ Dr. MabonWith all respect, Sir Gordon, I am merely questioning—I am not suggesting an Amendment—whether or not—
§ Dr. MahonI am not arguing whether it is a good expenditure or a bad one, Sir Gordon. I am not arguing its validity. I am merely asking a question as to the arithmetic of the sum in the light of the Ways and Means Resolution of 20th December. The Ways and Means Resolution—I think I saw the Leader of the House nodding in agreement about the point. I am making—was based on our deliberations on 5th and 6th December. On that occasion the Minister of Health made a certain remark about £500,000, which I presume is part of this sum—
§ Dr. MahonOn a point of order, Sir Gordon. At what juncture may I ask whether or not this total sum of money includes the article which I understood the Minister of Health specifically exempted from the Ways and Means Resolution? Is it now included in this amount?
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)I will endeavour, Sir Gordon, to answer one or two of the points made by hon. Members opposite, and I will also endeavour, having listened to your Rulings, to keep in order.
I think I should be in order, perhaps, in explaining how the Bill, whose first Clause we are discussing, arose in the first place. Supplementary Estimates under the National Health Service, England and Wales, and the National Health Service, Scotland, totalling £43,877,600 were presented to the House last November primarily to meet the cost of the Pilkington award. These Supplementary Estimates were passed in Committee of Supply on 5th December and on Report on 20th December, and a Consolidated Fund Bill to give effect to the Ways and Means Resolution was introduced and read the First time on 21st December, 1960. Perhaps I should be in order at this stage in mentioning that the reason why in Clause 3 the Measure is cited as the 1960 Act is that it received its First Reading on 21st December, 1960.
I should like to answer two points raised by hon. Members opposite which, as I understand your Rulings, Sir Gordon, are perfectly in order. First, hon. Members opposite ask why there is no reference in the Bill to the National Health Service. There are two reasons. I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who put this point very clearly. The first point is that no Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution ever has actually in the Bill any reference to the date of that Resolution. That is not just true of a special Consolidated Fund Bill; it is true of all Bills introduced in this House 195 that are founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. The other point is that this is not an Appropriation Bill but a Consolidated Fund Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution. It authorises the expenditure of a certain sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund, but it does not appropriate that sum of money for any particular purpose.
11.30 p.m.
I would at this stage, if I may, remind the Committee of the difference between three types of Bill. This Bill is founded on a very large Supplementary Estimate —and I will come to the point put by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in a moment. We shall before very long be dealing with a Consolidated Fund Bill which gives legislative effect to the Ways and Means Resolution supporting the Vote on Account. That is a different Bill, because the House has had sight of the Vote on Account—in fact, without realising it, it approved the first stage of that Vote on Account this afternoon. The House has a sight of that Vote on Account before we come to that Bill. Then, at the very end of the Supply season, we finally pass the Appropriation Bill, which is a different kind of Bill again.
Very early in our discussion, the hon. Member for Bermondsey very properly put a point which, as I see it, is quite in order—quite indubitably in order. He asked why we should have to vote this sum of money from this particular source. There is a perfectly simple answer to that. If we were not having this Consolidated Fund Bill this evening, any advance on the National Health Service Vote would have to be met from the Civil Contingencies Fund. I do not think that it will surprise any of the ex-F.S.Ts. —if I may so put it—who may be present, to know that that Fund would almost certainly be unable to bear that extra strain. It is for that reason that we are asking for this Bill, and I hope that, having been given that explanation, the Committee will agree to pass Clause 1.
§ Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)But can the Financial Secretary explain why, in Clause 1, it is proposed to take the money out of the Consolidated Fund, whereas in Clause 2 the hon. Gentleman 196 lets the cat out of the bag and says that we have not any money, anyway, and will have to borrow it?
§ Sir E. BoyleClause 1, with which we are at the moment dealing, deals with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund. Clause 2 deals with what I might call the more technical, financial aspect of the financing of the Government's activities and, strictly, I do not think that that aspect arises on our dealing with Clause 1.
§ Mr. M. StewartThe Financial Secretary has told us that the only reason for there being no mention of the Health Service in the Bill is that there never is any such mention. If he will forgive my saying so, that does not seem an adequate reason. As the Bill now stands. what is to prevent the money being used for other purposes? Granted we never do mention the specific service in a Bill like this, may it not be that our practice has always been wrong? After all, that does happen. For years and years it was assumed that the Budget Resolutions had the force of law before the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act was passed. Then we discovered that we had always been wrong, and had to put it right. That being so, can we have a better reason than that we have always done it in this way?
§ Sir E. BoyleI do not think that the Committee has been wrong on this issue. The hon. Gentleman rarely slips on a technical point, but I must say that he is now failing to distinguish between a Consolidated Fund Bill and an Appropriation Bill.
§ Mr. HaymanWill the Financial Secretary tell the Committee why his hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is not present and whether he has collapsed—
§ Mr. K. RobinsonWe are, of course, anxious that the Government should get the Clause, and I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for his explanation which, I am quite sure, has made things very much clearer to my right hon. and hon. Friends than they were when he first started to speak. He has not, however, answered my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) as to how we are to know that this money will, 197 in fact, be expended for the purpose for which he has told us it is intended. There does seem to us to be no guarantee that this will meet the purpose that it is the wish of the Government and the Committee it should meet.
Further, the hon. Gentleman said that this money was coming from this source —that is, the Consolidated Fund—as, otherwise, any advance on the National Health Service would have to be met out of the Civil Contingencies Fund which is not, in the normal way, large enough to bear such a large, fortuitous drawing as this Supplementary Estimate would have required. Would it not be found equally possible, so to speak, to reinforce the Civil Contingencies Fund, so that an enlarged Civil Contingencies Fund could then be used to provide the £42,877,600 required by the Bill?
§ Sir E. BoyleI think that it would be the view of both sides of the Committee that too swollen a Civil Contingencies Fund would be rather a dangerous thing from the point of view of control by Parliament over expenditure. I think that would be the general view.
I can only say again that we shall be coming later in the season to the question of the Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill. In the meantime, I give my personal assurance, from my dealings with the Minister of Health, that, assuming the Committee decides to pass this Clause, the money will be spent in the way the House assumed when it passed the Ways and Means Resolution in December last year.
§ Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)While sharing the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) to expedite progress of the Bill, before we let the Clause go irrevocably I would like an explanation from the Financial Secretary, if he would be so kind, of what appears to be a rather substantial variation in wording between Clause 1 and Clause 2.
I appreciate that I cannot now discuss Clause 2 because we have not reached it yet. On the other hand, if we do not now draw attention to the variation in wording, it will be impossible to do it once we have passed Clause 1. In Clause 1 are the words
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted 198 to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, the sum of forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.But in Clause 2, a totally different form of words is used. It does not say…the sum of forty-million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.but—any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.I should be grateful for an explanation of that difference in wording. Clause deals with what is issued out of the Consolidated Fund. It may be that Her Majesty may not need the whole of this £42,877,600. If she does not need ail this sum indicated—or, rather, not indicated—I cannot see why we should not have the same form of words…any sum or sums…We are all anxious to avoid excessive Government expenditure on the National Health Service or anything else.
§ Sir E. BoyleIssuing is regarded for purposes of Supply as one process, whereas borrowings can be a series of quite separate operations. That point arises on Clause 2, but that is the difference between issuing and borrowings.
§ Mr. SwinglerI do not want to prevent the Committee getting on, but after the discussion we have had on the nature of the proceedings it is worth while considering one or two things stated in the Bill. I understand that the Financial Secretary has explained the Clause by pointing out that we have, in the House, sanctioned expenditure on doctors' and dentists' pay to a certain extent.
We are now asked to give authority to the Government to draw a certain sum of money, but apparently we are not directing the Government to spend the money in this way. They might decide to spend it on raising old age pensions, or on hospital buildings, in which case—
§ Mr. SwinglerAs I understood it, the Financial Secretary specifically said that the sum of money mentioned in Clause 1 199 was not specifically attached to any purpose. He explained how it was connected with the proceedings in the House, but it is clear from the wording —and he explained it in a most illuminating way—that in Clause 1 we do not direct the Government to draw this money for a specific purpose. Therefore, somebody might come along and think that the Government were drawing it, for example, for hospital building, or to withdraw the Health Service charges, or to withdraw the National Health Service Contributions Bill. He might think that. But the Financial Secretary has explained that because we have previously sanctioned certain expenditure which is to the equivalent sum of money mentioned in the Clause, it is necessary for the Government to gain the authority to draw this sum of money.
However, it must be clear that in passing Clause 1 we are giving—and this is the nature of these Consolidated Fund Proceedings—carte blanche to the Government to spend this money as they will as regards the Bill and as regards Clause 1. It does not say they must spend it on the Health Service, let alone on doctors' pay. As I say, it might be spent on pensions, or on defence, or on something else. We are saying that the Government can draw £40 million—
§ Mr. SwinglerI am not discussing expenditure. I am discussing the reasons in Clause 1 for giving the Government financial authority and the peculiar nature of our proceedings which caused the disputation earlier tonight.
I have always understood that before we vote Supply in this Committee we are entitled to ventilate grievances. That is what has been in some doubt here tonight.
§ Mr. SwinglerWe are authorising the Government to draw a fairly large sum of money—£40 million. Some hon. Members of the Committee seem to have been in favour of voting it on the nod and saying: "We will let it go. All it is 200 is 40 million quid." Only because of probing and cross-examination have we discovered, first, the nature of the Bill—
The ChairmanWe are not voting the money now. It has been voted by the Committee of Ways and Means, and the House has approved that decision.
§ Mr. SwinglerThen what is the purpose of Clause 1? You are implying, Sir Gordon, that there is no purpose in these proceedings. Why have the Bill? Why bring in a Consolidated Fund Bill?
§ Mr. SwinglerConsolidated Fund Bills have a certain importance and a certain authority. They are necessary to sanction things which have previously been done by the House and by the Committee. That is one of the reasons why we are entitled to insist on a certain amount of discussion on them.
The Financial Secretary has given a most illuminating account of the way the system works and why we are giving authority for this sum of money to be drawn. What I wish to underline is this. First, it is important that this matter should be discussed, if only to enable the representative of the Treasury to recall the previous proceedings of the Ways and Means Committee which sanctioned the expenditure and gave rise to the Bill. Secondly, to ensure that the Clauses in the Bill are in order, otherwise it will be extremely easy for the Government to slip in a few extra millions and pass the Bill on the nod and say that we have given them authority to do exactly what they like.
§ Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)The Committee is interested in the question of Consolidated Fund Bills, and, after all, it is out of an interest of this kind that we occasionally get a check on our Constitution, and sometimes an improvement of it.
I should like to ask the Financial Secretary one or two questions about this Clause. The Clause gives the Treasury power to
issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdoma certain sum of money and apply it in a certain way. I have always been 201 very interested in the Consolidated Fund. My first question is: where is it, what is it, and how does one issue anything out of it?
§ 11.45 p.m.
§ Mr. MitchisonWe are asked to agree to a Clause giving the Treasury power to issue out of the Consolidated Fund. If we do not know what the words mean, how can we pass it? I am trying to find out. I have heard of the Consolidated Fund, but I have never found it anywhere.
The ChairmanThe hon. and learned Member will appreciate that the House of Commons has already passed a Resolution that it should come out of the Consolidated Fund.
§ Mr. MitchisonIs not that rather a rash assumption? It is just possible that the House of Commons passed it, as it has passed other Consolidated Fund Bills, inadvertently and that on this occasion, its interest fully aroused, it wants to know what the Consolidated Fund is, above all where it is, and what the process of issuing out of it consists of.
I do not wish to anticipate, but the Financial Secretary is well aware that the Bill goes on to provide for borrowing. If the Government have money in the Consolidated Fund, why is there any need to borrow? How much is there in the Consolidated Fund at the moment?
§ Mr. MitchisonPerhaps we can raise that matter on Clause 2. For the moment, keeping strictly to Clause 1, will the Financial Secretary tell us what the Consolidated Fund is, where it is, in what form it is kept, and how anything is issued out of it? If he can add how much there is in it at the moment, we shall be in a better position to make a decision on the Clause.
§ Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)When the hon. and learned Gentleman was supporting a Labour Government, did he ever ask that Government the same question? If he did not know the answer, why did he back them up blindly?
§ Mr. MitchisonThe answer to the hon. Member is quite simple. I am relatively young, and I live and learn. This is the first time this important question has ever arisen in my mind. It has arisen now because we are being asked to decide whether the Treasury should issue out of the Consolidated Fund a considerable sum. I will let the hon. Gentleman into a secret. It is more money than I have. I am anxious to know what the Consolidated Fund is, where it is, in what form it is, and how anything is issued out of it.
§ Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon, as I am sure the whole of the Committee is, for allowing a short but limited and entirely relevant discussion on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", if for no other reason than this. If there were no discussion, what would be the point of the Patronage Secretary waiting here to move the closure to the discussion which is not taking place?
You, Sir Gordon, have helped us to understand that the Clause is totally different from the Ways and Means Resolution and is in no sense a contradiction of it. The Clause is a piece of machinery. It is a piece of accounting and financial machinery as a result of which the will of the House with regard to Ways and Means is implemented in a particular way. The particular way proposed in the Clause is that the money should be issued out of the Consolidated Fund.
I share the view of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that this matter should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Nevertheless, I hope that it does not mean that by dealing with it expeditiously they are proposing to those of us who have listened very carefully on the back benches that we should assent to this proceeding.
On the contrary, I feel that they should allow us to use our consciences in these matters and, if we feel that an inflationary step like this ought not to be taken, then to vote against it. We want to make it absolutely clear to you, Sir Gordon, and it has been, if anything, confirmed by the Financial Secretary, that the effect of issuing this money out of the Consolidated Fund is coming very nearly to bankrupting the nation. This is creating far more credit than is proper or appropriate.
§ Mr. DiamondThat is the last thing I intended to discuss, and I did not use the word once. I am sorry if my words have been misleading to you, Sir Gordon.
What I was attempting to say was that whereas the Ways and Means Resolution dealt with expenditure, this Bill, in contrast with that, is merely a piece of accounting or financial machinery by means of which the wishes of the House, expressed in the Ways and Means Resolution, are given effect, but in a particular way, which is issuing, which is a mere book-keeping entry, in effect, and by no means to be assimilated with an item of expenditure, drawing of cash, or anything like that.
It is a little misleading to say "issue", because this is a mere book-keeping entry, a financial practice followed by the House of Commons for many years. The creation of credit, however, is by no means synonymous with the incurring of expenditure.
§ Mr. DiamondMay I in deference explain the point, and then if you say that it is out of order, Sir Gordon, I will, of course, immediately proceed to the next?
As the Financial Secretary has clearly explained, there is no money in this Fund to meet the issue which it is proposed in Clause 1 to make. If the Clause is to have any meaning, it can be only by the result of further Clauses which will enable money to be borrowed. There is no money in the Consolidated Fund and it is not my fault that the Clauses were numbered in this order and that Clause 1 is the decision to issue out of the Consolidated Fund although Clause 2 gives the practical possibility to the decision to issue by borrowing the money which may be issued. It is not my fault that the Clauses were put in that order and it would be entirely out of order to refer to subsequent Clauses. Indeed, how does one know how the Committee will deal with subsequent Clauses?
I am referring to the inflationary effect of passing Clause 1 and of issuing a sum of no less than nearly £43 million from the Consolidated Fund when the Fund 204 has not been fed with money to enable that to be done. I do not think that I need underline at length, but one should shortly underline, the reasons why I say that this has an inflationary effect. No one can maintain that the country is now in a deflationary situation. If we were in a deflationary situation, the one thing needed would be to inflate or, as the economists say, reflate the economy. It is not argued on either side of the Committee that that is the case. Far from that, it is admitted on both sides, and particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who has made many speeches inside and outside the House of Commons saying that he is not entitled to take steps which would lead to an increase of inflationary pressure.
§ Mr. GaitskellMy hon. Friend will surely agree that there is a great deal of slack in the economy at the moment.
§ Mr. DiamondThere is a great deal of slack in the economy and there is a great deal of slack in places other than the economy. But on this limited issue—and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with distinguished position must not attempt to lead me out of order—we are discussing a matter on which we have had many precise and clear Rulings from the Chair, and I shall argue only on the basis of what is admitted. It would be out of order for me to argue certain things which have not been admitted and which should have been admitted although they have not been admitted and one is on much safer ground in taking only the view of the Front Bench opposite, which is that we are in an inflationary or near inflationary situation and that no steps should be taken to make that situation worse. The passing of the Clause, which is what we are discussing and nothing else, would create a further credit of nearly £43 million without any base to it.
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)Order. I think that is issuing money and not creating further credit.
§ Mr. DiamondThat makes my point all the easier, and I am grateful to you for your Ruling, Sir William. It is much more evident, if one is talking about the issuing of money, that my point is well founded. Although some people find it difficult to understand the relationship 205 between credit and money, it is evident to everybody, I should think, that the issuing of money is a simple process and that the one thing one cannot do with money is to issue it when it is not there.
This Clause refers to the issue of no less a sum of money than nearly £43 million. To issue nearly £43 million out of a fund which has not got it to issue is an undertaking which only the most irresponsible of Governments would attempt to put before the Committee. The Government are supposed to be the guardians of the national purse, and it is they who should be showing us steps in financial probity. But, far from that, they are suggesting that we in this Committee, who are giving this matter every possible consideration, should take the unusual step—no wonder it is referred to in Erskine May as abnormal—of issuing the sum of £43 million out of a fund which, on the statement of the Financial Secretary alone, has not got the money to be issued. It is perfectly true that that may be put right later on, hut, as I have said before, it would not be in order for me to refer to that now. I am limited strictly to arguments related to this very narrow issue as to which, the Committee will be delighted to know, whereas Erskine May has said since 1913 we may not discuss it, Erskine May will no longer be able to say it.
I am now addressing my remarks to both Front Benches. I have already criticised the Government Front Bench for its irresponsible attitude in putting before the Committee a proposal to issue £42,877,600 which is not there, and I appeal also to my own Front Bench to have the courage to express our convictions about a financial procedure of this kind. It has been very difficult for us to get out of the Government what they were trying to do. Now we understand. We understand the modesty of the Financial Secretary in not wishing to rise to his feet earlier in the proceedings.
§ Mr. MellishWould my hon. Friend bear this in mind? One of the complications and difficulties is the wickedness of the Government in seeking to give certain people a sum of money out of a fund which does not contain that amount of money.
§ Mr. DiamondI am in the difficulty to which many of my hon. Friends have referred to. Much as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), there is nothing in this Clause relating to any other Clause or any other action of the Government.
§ Mr. MellishBut one fact has been established by what the Financial Secretary has said. This Bill gives effect to a Ways and Means Resolution of some time ago, and that Ways and Means Resolution makes clear the purpose to which the money was to be devoted when Parliament so voted it. Therefore, it is all the more relevant for my hon. Friend to argue that this was a despicable act.
§ Mr. DiamondI am in some difficulty about that. When we were discussing that Resolution I was in the Chair. This is a different occasion.
§ Mr. MellishMy hon. Friend knows all about it then.
§ Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)Do I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to oppose this Clause entirely on financial considerations, but that this has nothing to do with expenditure because we are not allowed to discuss expenditure? Therefore, when we oppose the Clause, it will be interpreted not as opposition to the Pilkington Report but to the Government machinery giving effect to that Report?
§ 12 m.
§ Mr. DiamondI am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has followed every word I have been saying. It gives me great confidence in addressing the Committee for a moment or two more, because I had previously assumed that I was not, perhaps, speaking with sufficient clarity. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Clause or in what we may do tonight when we come to vote to relate it, otherwise than by assumption, to the Pilkington Report or to the remuneration of doctors. We have been told by the Chair on many occasions that we are not discussing expenditure and we are not entitled to do so. We are discussing a matter of bookkeeping or the payment of money out of a Fund wherein is not to be found the money to pay out.
We should not adopt this practice, I suggest. It may have been adopted 207 hitherto, but it is to the credit of this Opposition that they have discovered an error and weakness in the practice previously adopted by Parliament in conducting its financial affairs. A vote on this matter could not in any sense be taken to mean that the Opposition oppose the sums of money being paid out for any certain purpose, be it for doctors' remuneration or anything else.
§ Mr. SwinglerAs I understand it, my hon. Friend's objection: is that there is not sufficient money in the Consolidated Fund to cover this awaal, with which we all agree. What is the objection to an overdraft on the Consolidated Fund?
§ Mr. DiamondNaturally, I should wish to answer that question, if I am permitted to do so. I have a great distaste for spending what one has not got. I have expressed such views with regard to excessive hire-purchase borrowing, which puts people into difficulties. By way of short example, I will say that we are now in a position where, each year, double the number of people are going to gaol for non-payment of debt.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe hon. Gentleman is going a long way from the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. DiamondI was mentioning that merely as an example.
§ Mr. WillisSurely, my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the Government should go to gaol.
§ Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)Only the Financial Secretary.
§ Mr. DiamondMy hon. Friends do not seem to appreciate fully that I have a train to catch at half-past four, and I am very anxious, as, no doubt, many of my hon. Friends are, to have ample time to discuss the Bill. With their assistance, I hope to draw my remarks to an early close.
I appeal once more to the Opposition Front Bench and to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to set an example of good leadership and determination. We are very glad he stayed with us and supported us in all our 208 debates on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)?"] We do not find a need for our Chief Whip in quite so obvious a fashion as do the Government and, of course, he does not serve the same purpose. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider what seemed to be his view earlier. I suggest that we should be allowed to discuss this matter. We are discussing, for the first time since 1913, and probably for the first time this century, a Clause of this kind on the Committee stage of a restricted and limited Consolidated Fund Bill. This will be regarded as a precedent and it will be quoted and used many times.
Owing to the wisdom and help of the Chair, we are able to have this discussion, and I suggest that we should consider very carefully whether we should, in full knowledge of what we are doing, adopt a procedure which will land us in enormous difficulties—near bankruptcy, as I said, to begin with—and approve the issue of nearly £43 million out of a Fund which at this moment, as we have been told by the Financial Secretary, has not the wherewithal to support such a payment out. If we were to do that, we too, would be regarded as irresponsible. Nobody can say that having given the matter consideration at this hour of the morning, we can be considered anything but wholly responsible. We have had considerable difficulty in elucidating the essence of the matter and making it clear to all occupants of the Chamber, including the occupants of the Front Bench opposite. Having done that, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would agree with me that this is a matter which we cannot let pass without registering our strongest disapproval.
§ Mr. GaitskellI had not intended to intervene again in this debate, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has said obliges me to comment briefly on some of the points he made. First, I thank him for the kind remarks he made about me personally. They are all the more welcome in view of the clear difference of opinion between us as to the exact significance of the Clause.
If I thought that the Clause would involve the country in a serious inflationary situation, I would without hesitation advise my right hon. and hon. 209 Friends to vote against it. The question is, is that the case? I know that if I were to go into too great detail on the broader implications, Sir William, you would say that I was out of order, and I have no intention of doing that. One could discuss whether it was a good idea for a little more or a little less money to be running about in the economic system. I take a view rather contrary to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. I think that there is a good deal of slack in the economy, and there would, therefore, be less danger—
§ The Deputy-Chairmanrose—
§ Mr. GaitskellI was about to leave that subject, Sir William.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe right hon. Gentleman is putting me in a difficulty. He is going a long way from the Clause.
§ Mr. GaitskellMy hon. Friend put me in a difficulty. That was the trouble.
Leaving those broader aspects on one side, there remains the question of whether the Bill in any sense is inflationary in that it involves the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, which, apparently, does not exist, of a sum of money. I thought I understood this before my hon. Friend spoke, but—
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must surely understand the British financial practice and method of conducting affairs out of and through the Consolidated Fund and the methods of borrowing involved. It is sinful of him to make out that he does not understand the basis of the English financial system.
§ Mr. GaitskellI had hoped that the Leader of the House, with his expert knowledge, greater even than that of the F.S.T., would have explained it to us rather more fully.
I am simply dealing with the serious argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester concerning whether we should divide against the Clause. I do not think that it is inflationary, and if we were to withhold our assent to the Clause, despite the subtlety of my hon. Friend's arguments, I think that it would be misunderstood by the doctors for 210 whom this sum of money, in some indirect fashion, is intended. That is a point which, as a politician, I have to bear in mind, and I am sure that my hon. Friend understands.
If it were possible for my hon. Friend to convince the doctors who are interested in the Pilkington award that he meant them no harm in opposing the Clause, that would be a different matter, but. lucid and comprehensive though my hon. Friend's remarks were, I do not think that they will reach the medical profession quite in the way he supposed.
§ Mr. MellishSurely, the answer—and my right hon. Friend is a famous economist—is that it does not necessarily have to be done through this Fund. There is no question of whether the doctors would get the money. They must get it from somewhere if the award has been given.
§ Mr. GaitskellWe are in great difficulty, Sir William, because, as you pointed out a little while ago, it is so easy to get out of order and one cannot say much. If we were to oppose and defeat the Clause, it would certainly create awkwardness, delay and embarrassment, not only to the Government, but in the payment of the Pilkington award, which the doctors have been awaiting for some little time. I think that really the simplest way of dealing with this, my hon. Friend having raised some new points, is to ask the Financial Secretary, since the Leader of the House does not seem himself anxious to reply —I had hoped he was going to—if he will clear this matter up. Suppose this Clause were to be rejected by the Committee. Would that interfere with the payment of the Pilkington award to the doctors or would it not? That is the simple issue. If it would not interfere with it at all, then the second question arises, is it inflationary or is it not inflationary? I think that if we could have the views of the Financial Secretary on those two questions, and if he would deal with other points which have been raised, we might be able to get on faster.
§ Sir E. BoyleI think it is perfectly clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just implied, that if the Committee were to refuse to pass this Clause there would 211 be no legislative authority for the payment of the Pilkington award as passed in Committee of Supply and on Report last autumn, and it certainly would be interpreted in the world outside, if the Committee refused to pass this Clause, either that the Committee was hostile to this payment to the doctors or, alternatively, that the Committee was in favour of a very greatly swollen Civil Contingencies Fund. I am bound to say, speaking on the side of the Committee opposite to the right hon. Gentleman, that that would be a very devious conclusion for the Committee to arrive at.
In answer to some of the points which have been raised during the debate, my answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) is this. We are not on this Clause discussing the raising of money. We discussed the raising of money in Committee of Ways and Means. We are not discussing here the supply of money. We dealt with that in Committee of Supply. We are here dealing purely with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund.
May I next apologise for any discourtesy in not dealing earlier with the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)? The reason why we always have "may" in a Consolidated Fund Bill and not "shall" is because it obvioulsy would be wrong to compel the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund if that did not prove to be necessary.
To go to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who asked, What is the Consolidated Fund and where is it? In asking that he was, I thought, rather like somebody going to Oxford or Cambridge and being shown all the colleges in either Oxford or Cambridge and, having been shown all the colleges of the university, asking, "Where is the university?" He is, in other words, making what the philosophers call a category error in asking a question in that way.
§ Mr. MitchisonWhat is the hon. Gentleman's answer to it?
§ Sir E. BoyleMy answer is that the Consolidated Fund is a fund out of which Supply is granted to Her Majesty. May 212 I say to him that the term applied to the Consolidated Fund does a definite and useful job in perfectly ordinary as well as Parliamentary speech, even though the Consolidated Fund is not one one can actually point to or hold in one's hand. I do not think can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman more precisely than that.
§ Mr. MitchisonSince the hon. Gentleman has now assured us there is no Consolidated Fund, does he remember Samuel Butler in "Erewhon"—the passage about bank money? Is this Consolidated Fund full of bank money which would not buy anything—or what is it full of? Or does it not exist—the money?
§ Sir E. BoyleIt is not something you can actually point to. 'The Consolidated Fund is in other words the fund out of which Supply is made to Her Majesty. One cannot define the term or use the term "Consolidated Fund" more precisely than that.
We have been discussing this Clause now for a little over two hours. I have endeavoured to answer some of the points which are in order and which were raised from the benches opposite. In so far as I have not answered points, that is simply because, Sir William, you or your predecessor in the Chair ruled that they were not in order on this Clause. Now that I have answered the points I hope the Committee will agree to pass the Clause.
§ Mr. SwinglerThe hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, I think he knows very well, which the Leader of the Opposition asked. The hon. Gentleman has dodged it. Suppose we refuse to pass this Clause. Would the doctors and dentists not get that extra remuneration?
12.15 a.m.
The Financial Secretary said it might be interpreted outside that the Committee were hostile to the doctors and dentists getting this extra pay, and that then something else would be done. We got the impression that if we refused to pass this Clause the Government would raise the money in another way, perhaps a more preferable way. We want an answer to the question. Is it true that if we vote down this Clause, the doctors and dentists would still get the money?
§ Sir E. BoyleWhat I said was that there would not be legislative authority for paying the doctors and dentists. This Bill is the legislative authority.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonOn a point of order. If the Financial Secretary is correct, do I understand that without this legislative authority payments have already been made to the doctors and are now being paid?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThat is not a point of order for the Chair.
§ Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West)As it is getting rather late, and as I was on the telephone all day on Sunday answering calls, could we know that no hon. Members are holding up trains to Croydn tonight?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThe Committee will know that that was not a point of order for the Chair either.
§ Mr. Douglas JayCould I ask a rather more relevant question of the Financial Secretary? Is he sure he is right in arguing that if the Committee were not to pass the Clause the Government would have no legislative authority to make these payments? Suppose the Committee negatived the Clause but passed the next Clause. Would the position not then be that although payment could not be made out of the Consolidated Fund it could be made by borrowing on Treasury Bills, or some other way? If not, what is the purpose of the Clause?
§ Sir E. BoyleThe hon. Gentleman is wrong. The first Clause only deals with the issue of money out of the Consolilated Fund. The second Clause deals with the means whereby the process of issuing can be carried out. The second Clause by itself cannot be a substitute for the first. Unless we pass Clause 1 there will not be any legislative authority for the payment of these sums.
§ Mr. SwinglerDo I understand that some of this money has already been paid out without the legislative authority?
§ Sir E. BoyleThis happens every year, not just on this Bill but on the normal Consolidated Fund Bill. When this afternoon we passed the Committee stage of the Vote on Account, the Con- 214 solidated Fund Bill, which we shall be taking in a few weeks, gives legislative authority to that. It is the ordinary Supply procedure for the Bill to authorise what has already been done by the Government.
§ Dr. Dickson MabonI do not understand what the Financial Secretary said. May I ask the Chair under what statutory authority were these payments made on 1st November, 1960, to doctors under this arrangement?
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt is not for the Chair to explain what is said by another hon. Member.
Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton)I should like to go back to the statement the Financial Secretary made in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It was an extraordinary statement. He said that this Clause does not compel the Treasury to issue any money out of the Consolidated Fund. What the Clause says is that the Treasury "may" issue certain sums out of the Fund. The point my hon. Friend was making was whether in this context, on any Bill of this sort, the word "may" meant "shall." I am astounded that the Financial Secretary should tell us that "may" does not mean "shall." This is the kind of argument I have heard many times in many places, including the Scottish Grand Committee.
§ Mr. WillisLet us have a Scottish Minister in to explain it.
§ Mr. MillanThe Lord Advocate has always explained to us that "may" in legislation means "shall". It seems to me that we require a great deal more explanation from the Financial Secretary on this point.
I thought that the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) about the difference in wording between Clauses 1 and 2 were extraordinarily good and were treated to a very cursory reply from the Financial Secretary. I am surprised that my hon. Friend allowed the hon. Gentleman to get away with it. The hon. Gentleman answered only one of the points that my hon. Friend made.
215 The words in Clause 1 are that
The Treasury may issueand so on, the sum of £42,877,600. The words in Clause 2 areThe Treasury may borrow…any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds.The Financial Secretary explained this discrepancy simply by saying that Clause 1 was the issue Clause and Clause 2 the borrowing Clause. That is not a sufficient explanation. The rubrics say that Clause 1 is the issue Clause and Clause 2 the borrowing Clause, and it does not help us to an understanding of the Clauses simply to remind us of that.The hon. Gentleman says that money under Clause 2 might be borrowed in more than one bit. So that explains the use of the term "any sum or sums" in Clause 2, whereas in Clause 1 we have the simple, categorical statement "the sum". But the hon. Gentleman did not explain why the words "not exceeding" do not also appear in Clause 1. It is the more extraordinary since he now commits himself to saying that Clause 1 does not compel the Treasury to issue any money at all. Therefore we have the unusual position that Clause 1—
§ Mr. WillisThis point is very interesting and important. Arising out of the use of the word "may", by the end of the financial year £42 million will have been spent and that money must come from somewhere.
Mr. MilianI held that "may" in Clause 1 means "shall" but the Financial Secretary has corrected that. On the hon. Gentleman's interpretation it seems all the more extraordinary that we should have this definite statement about "the sum" of £42,877,600. He has already said that we should not want, under the Clause, to compel the Treasury to issue any money out of the Consolidated Fund. That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking which had no reply from the Financial Secretary.
We are very much concerned to see that no more money is issued from the Consolidated Fund, or any other fund for that matter, than is absolutely necessary for the Government's purposes. 216 Why should the Government be so dogmatic about this? Why should they be so sure that in this Clause they commit themselves to this precise sum right down to the last hundred pounds? I should have thought that as a matter of practice it was impossible to get the sum down to the last hundred pounds. It might be £42,877,605 11s. 10d. or £42,877,601 10s. 4d. Why should we commit ourselves to this precise figure? This is what the Government have done and this is what the Financial Secretary has told us we are not compelled to do.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanOrder. I hope that the hon. Member is not discussing the amount of the sum.
§ Mr. MillanNo, Sir William. I am not discussing the amount of the sum. I am not discussing whether the sum is right or wrong, whether it is adequate or inadequate. As a matter of fact, it is the Government who are telling us that this is the precise sum. What I am arguing is that we should not have this precise sum at all.
We have in this Clause a precise sum about which we are now told there is a certain limitation. We are told that the Government may not issue any money at all. All I am arguing is a very simple point which my hon. Friend raised with considerable justification—a point to which he did not receive an answer. Why should not Clause 1 read "not exceeding in the whole £42,877,600"? We are very much concerned to ensure that we are not allowing the Treasury to issue too much money. We want to make sure that any money that the Government are going to spend is properly scrutinised. We need a good deal more explanation about the Clause.
§ Mr. DribergPerhaps I might say, Sir William, how very gladly some of us welcome your return to the Chair. I am also anxious to say how very grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) for pressing the Financial Secretary. I did not venture to interrupt further when the Financial Secretary was speaking because he is a very much greater expert on economics and finance than I am. I always feel a little diffident about making too much of a fool of myself by talking about these economic and financial mysteries—because they are mysteries to me. It is a great mystery to 217 me that this money of which we are apparently voting the application tonight has already been spent out of a fund which does not exist.
I am practically illiterate in these matters, but, as my hon. Friend says, I cannot see the difference in principle between issuing and borrowing. If the Treasury may issue the sum which is flatly set out in Clause 1, why is it necessary to put in:
any sum or sums not exceeding in the wholewhen we come to borrowing in Clause 2? I cannot see why similar safeguarding words should not be included in Clause 1. After all, we do not want the Treasury to issue more than Her Majesty needs for this service.
§ Mr. ReynoldsWould my hon. Friend not think that as there is nothing in the Consolidated Fund, amounts can only be issued out of it which are borrowed, and that as there is a limit on the amount that may be borrowed, that automatically implies a limit on the amount that can be issued? Might not that be the explanation?
§ Mr. DribergIt may well be, though my hon. Friend is going a little deep for me. He is another clever economist with whom I could never really keep up.
Seriously, we do not want to issue all the sum which is mentioned so flatly in Clause 1 if Her Majesty does not need it all for the service. I know that we cannot discuss expenditure when we are discussing this Bill, but you, Sir William, and your predecessor in the Chair—necessarily strict, as he was—nonetheless allowed the Financial Secretary to make a passing allusion to expenditure, because he said that the purpose of this sum was—he put it in what was perhaps rather a loose phrase—to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report or the Pilkington award. I take it that he meant "award". Even so, I take it that What he really meant was that it was to meet the cost of the increased remuneration to doctors and dentists arising out of the Pilkington award. The Pilkington award itself is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration.
It is rather significant that at the beginning of this Blue Book there is a note saying:
The estimated gross total expenditure of the Commission is £36,991 Of this sum £3,403 218 represents the estimated cost of printing and publishing"—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanOrder. I do not follow how that arises on the Question, "That the Clause stand part".
§ 12.30 a.m.
§ Mr. DribergI was only mentioning it in passing, Sir William, because the Financial Secretary had been allowed—by your predecessor, I think—to say that the purpose of this money that the Treasury may issue was to meet the cost of the Pilkington award—
§ Mr. CallaghanMy hon. Friend keeps referring to the Pilkington Committee having made an award. It may be that that is what the Financial Secretary said, but my hon. Friend should not accept what the Financial Secretary says. On the front cover is clearly printed:
Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration 1957–1960 Report Presented to Parliament…What happened was that the Pilkington Committee was set up in order to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government. It did so, and Her Majesty's Government then accepted the recommendations, but we really must get our technical parlance right. It would be quite wrong to construe that as an award in the sense of a Civil Service arbitration award or a court award. This is the responsibility of the Government. They have accepted the Pilkington Committee's recommendations and have paid moneys out of a Fund that does not exist to doctors who are in receipt of it.
§ Mr. DribergIn other words, my hon. Friend is confirming that the Financial Secretary ought to have used the word which I thought I heard him use, but which he denies using—the word "Report". In other words, he should have said that it was to have met the cost of the Pilkington Report—although that, too, is putting it rather loosely, because my brief, simple point is that the cost of the Pilkington Report itself was only £36,000.
Moreover, there is a significant final paragraph to this note, because it says that a sum of over £1,000 has been recovered by the sale of the Minutes of Evidence. This report was published well over a year ago, Sir William, and in the intervening year thousands of copies of those Minutes of Evidence must have been sold. If so, and if the Financial 219 Secretary was allowed to tell us that the purpose of this application of the Fund is to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report, why cannot we assume—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanOrder. I must try to carry out the rules of the House. Erskine May, in page 747, is quite definite:
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed…I must endeavour to carry out that rule in the Committee.
§ Mr. DribergI am always grateful for your guidance, Sir William, and I appreciate what you say. We have all been sincerely trying to avoid discussing or even mentioning expenditure because previously your predecessor seemed to think that a taboo word. But I did observe that the Financial Secretary had been allowed without interruption to say that the purpose of the sums which we are possibly applying tonight was to meet the cost of the Pilkington Report, and I would venture, very respectfully, to submit that if the Financial Secretary was allowed to say this—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanIt may well be that the Financial Secretary said that, but as the hon. Member himself has now made the point, let us go off that point and back into order.
§ Mr. DribergThank you for your salutary advice, Sir William. As you say, I have made the point about the last paragraph, which says that all this money has been recovered by the sale of the Minutes of Evidence. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary would be in order in telling us whether, if there have been substantial sales of these Minutes in the last year, he really needs a rather smaller sum than £42 million odd.
§ Mr. MellishI shall not detain the Committee for very long. I recognise that tomorrow it will be said that once again the Labour Party filibustered and kept up the House of Commons—[HON. MEMBERS: No.]—particularly by newspapers like the Evening Standard, which has now overtaken the Star and wiped it out. [HON. MEMBERS: It was the Evening News.]
§ Mr. DribergI hope my hon. Friend realises that he is making a very serious charge. If any newspaper were to say that, it would be reflecting very seriously on the Chair and would be guilty of contempt of Parliament.
§ Mr. MellishIf my hon. Friend had read the leading article in tonight's Evening Standard he would be led to believe that, if the Committee were not debating this, the Opposition would be told that we were not acting like an opposition. Those were my opening remarks, Sir William, and I will pass on to other observations.
Like other hon. Members, I take pride in the fact that we can debate a Ruling given in 1913. We may get satisfaction out of the fact that we can now continue the debate. We should not forget the principle that something which happened X number of years ago does not mean that this Committee cannot rule on precedent. We have struck some sort of blow for backbenchers and the rights of the Committee itself. We can be proud.
I am obliged to the Financial Secretary, who tried to answer the points raised with his usual courtesy. As I see it, this debate is in order in the sense that we are now talking, in a normal Committee stage—although this is a restrictive Bill—on the Clause stand part, on a matter which, by a Ruling of the Chair, can be reasonably wide.
I listened with interest to the Financial Secretary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I know nothing of economics in that sense. I have never had much money and have never had to be worried about economics as such. But I am astounded at the procedure we must go through in putting out this sum of money.
I am associated with the National Health Service, and I wonder why it is that we have never done the same thing before. Where does this money come from? How is that millions of pounds awarded by the Whitley Council have never had to wait for Mr. Pilkington, whoever he may be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Harry."] Sir Harry Pilkington. We have never had to wait before. There have been negotiations. The Whitley Council machinery—
§ The Deputy-ChairmanI hope the hon. Member will not go further on that point. To begin with, I do not think that it is covered by this Clause, and if it were it would be dealing with expenditure.
§ Mr. MellishI have explained my position. The Financial Secretary said it was necessary to introduce this Bill in order to apply measures contained in the Consolidated Fund. We heard the peculiar story about all this—that it does not exist and has no money in it anyway. This is, in fact, a piece of mechanism which enables this money to be paid.
The last point I want to make—I notice a transfer in the Chair, so I had better get on, Sir Gordon—is to wonder why it was necessary to have a Bill of this kind to implement a Ways and Means Resolution of some earlier date. Why was not the same mechanism used for other awards in the National Health Service? Similar awards were based on other means of getting the money.
§ Mr. MellishI was talking about the way in which hon. Members of this Committee, including yourself, Sir Gordon, had broken a precedent which I think should have been broken long ago. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked why we had not raised these questions before. Why did he not ask them when his party was in Opposition? The answer is that Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not have enough gumption to realise that these precedents can be broken and that we are prepared to break them.
§ Mr. MellishMay we have an explanation of why it is necessary for this award to be dealt with in this way? Why were other awards not dealt with in this way? Surely that is a relevant point. If this procedure is to be adopted in this Service for an award that is made in consequence of a Report and we have to go through this sort of nonsense to find this money, I can only say that the business of the House will be held up and that it will create a great deal of confusion. I do not understand why 222 we have to go through this nonsensical procedure at this time of the night to pay this award.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that he would advise us to vote in support of the Clause. I normally agree with my right hon. Friend, and I realise that I might be misunderstood outside the House, but I respectfully reserve my rights in this matter because if we collectively say that this is what we will do on this occasion it will give the Patronage Secretary a feeling of confidence to which he has no right. For my part, I shall certainly call for a Division.
§ Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)I revert to the question raised by two of my hon. Friends about "may" and "shall". I may have misunderstood the Financial Secretary, but I thought he said that the word "may" was used instead of "shall" because if "shall" had been there it would mean that the Treasury shall issue all money required, even though it may not be required, whereas if it was "may", it would read:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdomany such money as it may require. That seems to imply that it would be possible for the Treasury to get this money from somewhere else.
§ Mr. CallaghanBorrow it.
§ Mr. BenceNot necessarily borrow it. We cannot discuss Clause 2 before we are discussing Clause 1. The Financial Secretary says that the word "may" is used because the Treasury may be able to get the money from somewhere other than the Consolidated Fund, but if it was "shall" the Treasury would have to ask for it. The assumption seems to be that the Treasury can get the money from somewhere else. Where else can the Treasury get the money from?
It seems implicit in what the Financial Secretary said that if we use the word "may" it may not be necessary to issue all this money. The assumption is that it will be obtained from somewhere else. Will it be obtained from the sale of a steel company, or something like that? Will the Treasury be able to get the money in that way, or from the profits from the sale of 223 Premium Bonds, or by running a raffle, or tombola, or bingo, or something like that? That was implicit in what the Financial Secretary said. He ought to explain why the word "shall" has not been used. He has used the word "may" because the Treasury may get the money from somewhere else. I should like to know how the Treasury can get the money without going to the Consolidated Fund.
§ Sir E. BoyleI want to answer one or two points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) asked why this had not arisen before in matters relating to the Health Service. The answer is simple. All expenditure has to be authorised by means of Consolidated Fund Bills.
12.45 a.m.
We are dealing here—I will try to get the phrasing precise enough to satisfy the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg)—with the results of a Government decision following an important Report. As a result of the Government's decision, a major Supplementary Estimate had to be presented to the House last November. As I explained a little while ago, it was not possible to bear the cost from the Civil Contingencies Fund, which would not have been large enough to bear the extra strain. That situation has arisen before in the history of Parliament, not necessarily in connection with any particular kind of Estimate. It may happen in connection with any large Supplementary Estimate, and there is nothing unusual, therefore, about the procedure with which we are concerned tonight.
§ Mr. MellishThis is a serious interruption. Why did not the other moneys which have been awarded to the National Health Service have to go through this Fund in the normal way?
§ Sir E. BoyleBecause in the normal course of events we should deal with Health Service expenditure through the Vote on Account. The only difference in this case is the pure accident that the Government's decision following on the Pilkington Report—
§ Mr. LoughlinOn a point of order. Has it not been ruled by you, Sir Gordon, that it is not competent for 224 the Committee to discuss expenditure arising out of the Clause? Is it permissible for the Financial Secretary on three successive occasions to discuss expenditure?
§ Sir E. BoyleI do not want to be discourteous to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), but it is the normal custom in the House of Commons when an hon. Member asks a question and says that it is a serious interruption for the reply not to be interrupted by a point of order from his own side.
The Consolidated Fund Bill arises out of the accident that the necessary Supplementary Estimate had to be presented to the House of Commons last November. It is purely a matter of the time of the year. In the normal way Health Service expenditure is met by means of the Vote on account.
§ Mr. MellishWhy does it have to be? Why can it not be amended so that we can have a further Supplementary Estimate and not go through all this procedure which has involved the Chair and everyone else in an impossible situation?
§ Sir E. BoyleI think the hon. Gentleman is rather widening the point. There is nothing particularly unusual about the procedure we have this evening. It has arisen often in Parliament's history.
May I answer one or two other points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked why we have this precise figure in the Bill. Supplementary Estimates presented to the House of Commons are normally rounded up to the nearest £100. That is a perfectly ordinary procedure.
§ Sir E. BoyleI apologise for getting out of order, Sir Gordon. I thought it would have been in order because the exact sum is referred to in Clause 1. At any rate, I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point, so we need not pursue it further.
The other points raised concerned the word "issue". It is again the normal 225 procedure in Consolidated Fund Bills that Parliament authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of a definite sum. There is a difference between authorising the issue of a definite sum and in a later Clause—I mention this now only to draw the contrast—authorising borrowing up to a limit. Most hon. Members should not find anything very peculiar about the concept of borrowing up to a limit.
Those are the points which have been raised. We have now been on the Clause for two hours and forty minutes. It is now approximately half an hour since the Leader of the Opposition made it plain that he for his part would not oppose the Clause. If we continue to discuss the Clause for a considerable time longer, the motives of the Committee may be misunderstood outside the House of Commons. I therefore suggest that we come to a fairly early decision on the Clause.
§ Mr. DribergThe Financial Secretary said that he had dealt with the points raised and he has been most courteous in attempting to do so, but will he answer the points which I was allowed by a previous occupant of the Chair, Sir Gordon, to put about whether any money had come in from the sales of evidence?
§ Mr. MellishThe case has been clearly established tonight for a reconsideration of our procedure and the Leader of the House should reconsider it. There is no reason why we could not have had a further Supplementary Estimate for the money further required. This is nonsensical, out-of-place and antiquated procedure.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerI have found the discussion extremely educative and we all sympathise with you, Sir Gordon, in your difficulties about giving your Rulings. Previous to the debate, I studied with care the two pages of Erskine May in question, and I noticed the various inflexions of language which have been mentioned.
However, I voice again my view that it may be misunderstood if we continue to oppose for very much longer the granting of money—I do not wish to use the word "oppose"—if we continue to discuss the granting of money to doctors and 226 others on this orthodox British financial procedure. After all, this is orthodox British financial procedure—the Supplementary Estimate, the Votes on Ways and Means, the discussion in Committee of Supply in December, to which much reference has been made—and finally having this debate, what the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has called this extraordinary procedure of a special Consolidated Fund Bill.
Incidentally, it is a method which the Government were not keen on adopting because we knew that it was an extra hurdle for us, but we have had to adopt it because in the orthodox way, in view of the fact that it was not possible to pay this money out of the Civil Contingencies Fund, there was no other way to get the legislative authority to pay the doctors this money.
I feel certain that the Committee now desires to reach a decision on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." To answer in the spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition spoke—he spoke with great reason on this question—we want to decide our affairs even though there is opposition and there are enlivening and educative processes going on, which do us all good. I sincerely ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now to reach a decision on this Motion. The hour is comparatively late, but there is still time to discuss the later stages of the Bill. If we can do so in a reasonable time, that will be fairer to everybody concerned, because we have a heavy programme this week. I honestly feel that honour has been saved by the incursion made into the pages of Erskine May by hon. Members opposite. Honour has been saved and educative processes followed, and I sincerely feel that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should bring this discussion to an end so that we can make further progress within a reasonable time.
§ Mr. K. RobinsonHon. and right hon. Members are most grateful to the Financial Secretary for the very patient explanations he has given to the points of substance which my hon. and right hon. Friends have made. We have had a valuable debate on this Clause and, as there are other Clauses and subsequent stages of the Bill, I think that we are now prepared to move to the next stage.
227 I was very glad to hear that the Leader of the House had found this an educative debate, although I thought that remark a little out of character with his earlier intervention when he suggested that he knew all about the details of our financial procedure and seemed to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerI may know all about the financial procedure, but I have been educated about our Parliamentary procedure.
§ Mr. RobinsonI am sure that it has been educative to all of us in respect of Parliamentary procedure, and in the light of the new decision which has been made in the debate. I think that we would now be happy to move on to Clause 2.
§ Mr. SwinglerTo respond to the sweet reasonableness of the Leader of the House, we are glad to see him and to hear his new melody. He will know that to many back bench Members the appearance of the name "Consolidated Fund Bill" on the Order Paper spells out the rights of back benchers. In fact, when many hon. Members saw the name on the agenda, before they had examined the Bill, one of the first things they did was to go to Mr. Speaker and inform him that they wished to raise a number of administrative grievances. That was before they discovered certain limitations which have in the process of several hours tonight become more abundantly clear to them. We have, as the Leader of the House said, all been educated very much. We have also had an opportunity of exercising our back bench rights of discovering what we are doing. Some of us are still not quite sure that this is really the correct way of doing it, or whether, especially as the doctors and dentists are going to get the money anyway, we should not be entitled to say that we are going to do it in some other way. However, in view of the melodious way in which the Leader of the House has appealed to us, perhaps we can now pass on to the other Clauses.
§ Mr. ReynoldsI have listened for some two hours to this debate, and I am still not as completely enlightened as I should like to be about the purpose of 228 this Clause. We have heard the Leader of the House and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and we now only have to hear the Parliamentary Secretary and we shall have heard the triumvirate on the Government Front Bench.
I have listened to the appeal of the Leader of the House that we should conclude the debate on this Clause. I may say that I have a great deal of sympathy with him in that respect, but I would also say that if he expects us to go on to discuss the rest of the complicated Clauses in this Bill in the small hours of the morning, we really cannot give proper consideration to them.
§ Mr. ReynoldsYes, but the Leader of the House has asked that we should come to a conclusion on Clause 1 because we have spent some three hours discussing the Clause. I am expressing my sympathy with that request, Sir Gordon. Clause 1 is a particularly important Clause, but it cannot stand by itself. It must be followed, as you are aware, by a debate on the further Clauses. Otherwise Clause 1 itself has no particular meaning. I was simply expressing the hope that if we could bring the discussion on Clause 1 to a close we might perhaps proceed to the discussion of the other Clauses at some more reasonable hour than one o'clock in the morning. I hope that the attitude of the Leader of the House will be extended to enabling us to discuss the other important Clauses at some more reasonable hour.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.