Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.) (Hansard, 20 February 1961)

§ Mr. K. Robinson
This Clause is, perhaps, slightly less important than Clause 1, but it is nevertheless a Clause of some importance because it gives the power to the Treasury to borrow sums up to the amount which it is to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under Clause 1. In view of what happened on Clause 1, Sir Gordon, it may be a relief 229 to you to know that I have no intention on this Clause to question the desirability of raising a loan in preference to issuing Treasury bills, nor do I intend to challenge in any way the conduct of the officials or of the Departments which will receive the Supply grants. I wish merely to elucidate certain points which arise on phrases in the Clause.
It is provided that the Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise… I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to explain what other methods would be open and why the issue of Treasury bills is the one method which is mentioned in the Clause.
We next come to an extraordinary feature of the Clause. As you reminded us earlier, Sir Gordon, this Bill arises originally from the Supplementary Estimates which were debated by the House on 5th December last. Those Supplementary Estimates were presented in two parts, the first being Vote 5, National Health Service, England and Wales, accounting for £37,665,000, the second being Vote 10, National Health Service, Scotland, accounting for £5 million. Why does the Treasury propose to borrow from the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland? This really seems most invidious. Since the Bank of England is, presumably, the appropriate institution from which to borrow for England and Wales, why should the Bank of Ireland be, by presumption, the bank from which the Treasury will borrow for meeting the costs of the National Health Service in Scotland?

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with the further invidious feature that there is discrimination in favour of the Bank of Scotland as against the other four joint stock banks in Scotland. There is the National Bank of Scotland, and there is the Clydesdale and North of Scotland Bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, the British Linen Bank—

The Chairman
None of these banks is mentioned in the Clause.

§ Mr. Robinson
I appreciate that, Sir Gordon. I think my hon. Friend was trying to assist me.

§ Mr. Reynolds
On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I appreciate that the other 230 banks are not mentioned, but the Clause provides that the Treasury may borrow "from any person", and "person" must surely include corporate bodies of one kind and another. Because the particular banks or institutions are not mentioned, may we not refer to them because they are covered by the word "person"?

Hon. Members
Answer.

The Chairman
Whether "persons" includes banks is a difficult point. I should not have thought that legally it did.

§ Mr. Jay
Further to that point of order. Surely, for the purposes of the Clause, "persons" must include financial institutions. It would not be the normal habit of the Treasury to borrow from private persons.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Old-age pensioners.

§ Mr. Jay
The Clause must have in mind other financial institutions than the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland.

The Chairman
It is a legal point on which I would not express an opinion.

§ Mr. Robinson
In the absence of any clear Ruling to the contrary, we must assume that "any person" includes bodies corporate. I recall that on a recent Bill, this very point cropped up and I was assured by a Minister on behalf of the Government that "person" included a body corporate.
I do not want, however, to be drawn too far from my main point of the curious incursion of the Bank of Ireland into the Clause. It is a bank which, I presume, is not even in the Commonwealth. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) that I used the phrase "Bank of Scotland" because that seemed to be the proper analogy with the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland, although I know that there are many banks in Scotland and that they are all banks of great distinction.

§ Mr. Manuel
The "bonnie banks o' Loch Lomon'."

§ Mr. Robinson
I must not be led into the byeways of Highland song. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will enlighted us about this curious provision.
231 Then, in line 25, we come to what, I can only think, is one of those printer's errors to which you, Sir Gordon, in the course of one of your earlier Rulings, made passing reference. It states that these banks may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums", in the plural. The word "said" can only mean "aforesaid". Therefore, "sums" must refer to something which has gone before. Before this line in the Bill, however, I can find only a single sum. I think, therefore, that this must be a printer's error, which, if my supposition is correct, again justifies us, if justification were needed, in taking the opportunity to make a fairly close scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill, even at this hour of the morning. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will look into that. I do not see that it can possibly refer to any-think that comes afterwards. So far, the only sum is that mentioned in Clause 1, and that is in the singular.
The only other point that I wish to raise is in subsection (4). This is a piece of Parliamentary drafting which, to say the least, is infelicitous. It states: shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. That means either something or nothing. It is unsual for a provision to be included in a Bill, particularly a Government Bill, which means nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no.''] It is peculiar. I do not want to get at odds with my hon. Friends about this. I am certainly not saying that it never happens. I only say that it is peculiar.

§ Mr. Diamond
It is undesirable.

§ Mr. Robinson
It is certainly undesirable. I hope that we can have elucidation of this odd phrase. What exactly does it mean? How could it be available in any other manner? Even having asked that question and answered it to my own satisfaction, it does not seem to get us much further. It is possible that some of my hon. Friends may have other points which worry them about the Clause, but I hope that the Financial Secretary in due course will be able to answer those which I have raised.

§ Mr. Swingler
Before we go further, may I ask the Financial Secretary to 232 reply immediately to my hon. Friend's question about a misprint in the Clause? Because of this, we might discuss the Clause for a long time under a misapprehension or on a misinterpretation. Therefore, I take it that the Financial Secretary can tell us immediately either that the Clause will be corrected, presumably on Report, or what are the sums in the plural to which the Clause refers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us now. Is this a misprint, as my hon. Friend said, or is it not? Could the hon. Gentleman reply?

§ Sir E. Boyle
I am making inquiries on that very point.

§ Mr. Diamond
On a point of order. Are you now ruling, Sir Gordon, that this is a misprint which you have to right, or not?

The Chairman
I have not ruled it is a misprint.

§ Mr. Driberg
Ought we perhaps to move to report Progress till the inquiries the Financial Secretary is making come to fruition?

The Chairman
Not at this stage.

§ Mr. Swingler
The Financial Secretary says he is making inquiries whether the Clause is printed correctly or not. Surely, the Committee is not to be in a position where we are obliged to pass something which may be incorrectly printed? In view of that situation, will you not, Sir Gordon, reconsider your Ruling and allow us for the moment to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, till at any rate we have information from the Treasury on this point?

The Chairman
I understand the inquiry is not into a misprint—

Hon. Members
Yes, it is.

§ Mr. Jay
Further to that point of order. I think there is no doubt that, as a matter of fact, the Financial Secretary said he would make inquiries whether there was a misprint in the Bill.

The Chairman
I understood he was making inquiry as to the word "sums".

§ Mr. Jay
I do not think there is any question about the fact that he is making inquiry whether there is a misprint. If this is so, and in the unfortunate eventuality of the Committee discussing a 233 Clause which is in error, is there no means within the procedure of the Committee by which we could adjourn our discussion, either by moving to report Progress or in some other way, in order that the Financial Secretary can have time to get the correct answer before the discussion continues?

§ Mr. Swingler
Further to that point of order. I think, Sir Gordon, that may be you did not hear the exchange because you were speaking to the learned Clerk. However, I asked the Financial Secretary whether he could tell the Committee whether or not my hon. Friend was correct in supposing there was a misprint in the Clause, and, if not, if he could explain the question Which my hon. Friend raised. He replied that he could not answer and was having the matter inquired into. In these circumstances I should like, if I may, to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
I do so because the Committee is placed in a difficult position, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), in that we do not know—and have not been informed by the Treasury—the exact meaning of this Clause owing to the fact that the word "sums" in the plural does not seem to apply in so far as there is only one sum, a singular sum, mentioned in the Bill. On that ground I believe that we should not carry this discussion any further till we have from the Treasury an assurance that an Amendment will be made on Report to correct this misprint in the Bill or till we have an explanation from the Treasury spokesman.

§ Sir E. Boyle
I am on a point of order. I tried to make inquiries with as much expedition as possible on this point, and I think there is little doubt, comparing this print of the Bill with past Consolidated Fund Acts—I have made the comparison—that the hon. Member is correct, and that the word "sums", should read "sum". I ask your Ruling on this matter, Sir Gordon, but I think there is 'precedent in these circumstances for making the correction in the later print of the Bill.

Several Hon. Members
rose

The Chairman
We cannot amend the Clause now that we are on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

§ Mr. Jay
In this situation, I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in view of the very unusual situation which has just arisen. We are now informed by the Financial Secretary, if I understood him aright, that the Bill we are discussing—indeed, the Clause we are discussing—contains a misprint.
1.15 a.m.
It is, therefore, surely impossible for us to give an affirmative vote to the Clause because no one is proposing that it should go through in this form. In addition, as I understood it, Mr. Chairman, you have already ruled that it is impossible to amend the Bill. We would like to be clear Whether that is your definitive ruling. I must confess, peculiar and abnormal though the proceedings may be, that I cannot recall any occasion on which the Committee found itself in the situation in which it was discussing a Clause which was not recommended to it by any hon. Member and on which it was not in order to move any Amendment.
Speaking on the spur of the moment, I cannot see any solution that can possibly be reached by continuing discussion of the Bill. It would clearly be better to report Progress, which means reporting Progress to Mr. Speaker who, I am sure, out of his wisdom, would be able to recommend to us a much more effective solution.
I see that the Leader of the House has returned. Perhaps I could explain the difficulty to him. We are discussing Clause 2. It has been revealed by the Financial Secretary that the Clause contains a printer's error. We have been advised by you, Mr. Chairman, that it is contrary to the rules of the House to make any amendment to this Bill. I am therefore suggesting to the Committee that the only possible solution is to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
May I oppose the Motion? It seems to me that it has been moved on a false premise. Surely we are concerned with ensuring that our meaning is clear. I have always understood that when a plural word is written into a Bill it includes the singular. It may include the plural, and it may not be apparent at once that there will be a plural at all. The fact remains that the singular is covered. It is open to 235 question whether "sums" is not the correct word to use, anyway. I understand that we have been told that in other Bills the word has been in the singular. That does not necessarily mean that it is wrong to write it in the plural in this Bill. While it would be wrong only to have the singular if we wanted to deal with plurals, in this instance we have the plural, although we only want to deal with the singular, which the plural covers. Even if the plural form of the word is unusual, it does not necessarily prevent the Bill from meaning what we want it to mean. For that reason, I suggest that the Motion is unnecessary.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I have listened with attention to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I think that his argument falls down. First, he argues that the meaning is perfectly clear. I am not sure that that can be fully maintained. There have been Consolidated Fund Bills in which the plural "sums" is used because in earlier parts of those Bills quite distinct sums have been referred to. We sometimes have Consolidated Fund Bills which deal with supplementary estimates of one year and with the Vote on Account for the next year and provide a sum for each. In subsequent passages of Bills of that kind the word "sums" is used, referring to both those sums—one for one year and one for another.
The plural is used and, if we use it correctly, is only used where there are two or more distinct sums. If we were to use the plural in this Bill that might suggest that this is a very different kind of Consolidated Fund Bill from the kind it is. There are Consolidated Fund Bills in which the word "sums" would be in order, but this is not one of them. I suggest therefore that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely is wrong, first, in supposing, that the meaning is clear anyhow.
I should like to address my second argument particularly to the Leader of the House, because here we are on a matter of principle. Even if the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely were correct in supposing that the meaning is clear, surely when we are legislating we have to consider another point. Suppose that we said that in this Bill it is perfectly clear that although we have used the 236 plural when strictly it ought to have been the singular, nevertheless we all know what it means and the plural can be said to include the singular. That surely would raise the question of the interpretation of other Acts of Parliament where the use of the word in the plural could be taken to mean the singular and the singular only, because that is what "sums" will have to mean here. It will have to mean not "sums" but "sum."
Are we to accept the principle that in an Act of Parliament the plural can be understood to mean the singular, and the singular only? I am sure that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely and the Leader of the House will agree that there is a point of importance here and that we ought not to be content with a slovenly drafting of this kind. How are we to get out of the difficulty? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw the Bill."] We are at the moment on the Committee stage of the Bill. No notice has been given of any Amendment. It would be difficult to move Amendments in Committee.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
Impossible.

§ Mr. Stewart
If the Bill cannot be amended in Committee, I presume that it could hardly be amended on Report. I confess that I do not expect that the Chair would be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment on Third Reading. Nor is there with a Bill of this character the hope of amending it in another place.
We are, therefore, in the position that there is an undoubted error in the Bill. Do we allow the Bill to go through with an error in it, which even if it does no injury to the meaning of this Bill establishes a new principle in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament? This is the principle that a plural word could be used when one wants to use not the singular or plural but the singular only. I do not think that without further thought we can push that principle into law. Yet if we go on with consideration of the Bill that is where we shall be driven to, because if we go on considering it tonight we cannot amend it.
Surely the right course in these circumstances would be for the Committee to report Progress. We have no wish to delay the doctors getting their money. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are getting it."] I understand, with respect, that they are 237 in process of getting some of it, but I believe—and the Financial Secretary will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that if we do not pass the Bill and the Government go on paying out to the doctors what they ought to get, the box will be empty before the end of the financial year. That is what the Bill is for—to put money into the box a little faster than the very proper claims of the doctors are taking it out. There would be a danger not tomorrow but before the end of the financial year, if we did not get the Bill through in time, that the doctors would be done out of their money through the bungling of the persons responsible for the Bill.
We do not want the doctors to suffer in that manner. But they need not. The Government can either agree to report Progress or withdraw the Bill straightaway—in which case they can start briskly tomorrow on a properly drafted Bill, giving up proper explanations for the financial procedure, and we shall be quite willing to agree to the postponement of all other Government business until that is done. That would enable the doctors to get their money, the Government to get their Bill and ourselves to avoid the dangerous error of casually admitting a new principle about the meaning of words into Acts of Parliament without proper consideration.
It seems to me that every argument—that of justice 'to the doctor, that of propriety in the administration of Bills, and that of respect to the House—points to the conclusion that either the Bill should be withdrawn or we should accept the Motion which the Chair in its wisdom has allowed to be moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again".

§ Mr. Driberg
Many of us have lost confidence in Her Majesty's Government—

An Hon. Member
A long time ago.

§ Mr. Driberg
—but it becomes a very much more serious matter when anything happens which tends to make us lose confidence in Her Majesty's Stationery Office— [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Jay
I think that what my hon. Friend had in mind was that Her Majesty's Stationery Office, after all, acts 238 on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. What we are in the presence of here is not a simple misprint by Her Majesty's Stationery Office but a blunder by Her Majesty's Government.

§ Mr. Driberg
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is something which brings me back to Her Majesty's Government with greater weight. If it is an error of drafting and not simply a misprint, then, of course, it is unthinkable that any responsible Minister would ask us to allow the Bill to proceed in this form, particularly as, as one gathers, there may be all sorts of procedural objections to amending a Bill of this kind. It might indeed be impossible to do so.
I think that the argument advanced by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is without foundation. If he will look at the part of the Bill to which he was referring, he will find that there appear the words credit of the said sums and the next words are any sum or sums". His argument 'was that "sums," in the plural, includes the singular—that it could be either singular or plural, as one liked. If that were the case, it would not have been thought necessary for the next words to be any sum or sums". The Government would simply have repeated the plural, taking it to include the singular. Am I misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman?

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I do not think the hon. Member is misrepresenting me, but he is misrepresenting the facts. I think that "sums" happens to include the any sum or sums following it.

§ Mr. Driberg
No, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is reading the Bill aright.
In any case, we have now been told by the Financial Secretary that there is an error, apparently, in the drafting of the Bill, and I take it that either he or the Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will shortly tell us that the Government propose to accept this Motion to ask leave to report Progress. I do not see what else they can do.

§ Mr. Swingler
I take it that we shall not be asked by the Government or by the back benchers opposite to go ahead and deliberately force through something that is either a misprint or an error on the part of the Treasury. There may be some hon. Members opposite who do not care whether we put singulars or plurals in the Bill. They may argue that the plural includes the singular. I therefore presume that whenever—if ever—this Government come forward with a proposal to establish a national theatre those hon. Members will not mind whether the proposal is for national theatres. When we vote power to Her Majesty to have a standing army, I presume that they will not mind a vote for standing armies.
I think that the Leader of the House will appreciate that a serious matter has now been uncovered, and one quite frankly admitted by the Financial Secretary. In view of the Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, which was an extraordinarily rigid Ruling, to the effect that this Bill was unamendable, which Ruling would appear to cover both the Committee and Report stages, the only possible course left is for the Government to withdraw the Bill.
It is, apparently, impossible for us to overcome this difficulty, as could otherwise be done quite easily by a manuscript Amendment or an Amendment on Report—whenever that is to be taken—but the Chairman of Ways and Means has apparently ruled that that cannot be done—

§ Mr. Mellish
I understand that cannot be done because it means that the Bill must be completely reprinted, but I do not see why that should not be done. There are the people there to do it.

§ Mr. Swingler
It is quite obvious that the two things go together and that both of them point in the direction of the withdrawal of the Bill and its redrafting in the proper form. I therefore take it, Sir William, that we shall have a statement swiftly from the Leader of the House, who, I notice, has been inquiring very anxiously, in order to close these proceedings, because, of course, it means that the whole matter will have to be reconsidered when the new Bill is published.

§ Mr. Diamond
There are four serious and profound reasons for asking the 240 Leader of the House to agree to this present Motion. The first reason is that the advice which the Financial Secretary must seek in order to establish whether this word should be in the singular or in the plural is not available. That is obvious, without mentioning it too specifically. The kind of advice that the hon. Gentleman needs is not available, because the time is now twenty-five minutes past two o'clock and it is not the practice to keep Parliamentary draftsmen available to this hour.
The second reason is that the Financial Secretary, as he has made perfectly clear, does not know whether this should be in the singular or in the plural and, whether or not advice is available, we are in the difficult situation that the Government spokesman who is bringing in the Bill cannot be sure of the form that the words of an important Clause should take. He is unaware of that and, therefore, is unable to discharge his duty to the Committee.
Some say that the word should be "sums," while some say that it should be "sum." There may be good reasons for the singular, and there may be good reasons for the plural use—

§ Mr. K. Robinson
I think that it has eluded my hon. Friend that the Financial Secretary said that, clearly, according to precedent, the word should be in the singular.

§ Mr. Diamond
I am grateful, Sir William. I listened carefully, and those were the words used, which meant that the Financial Secretary was referring to a precedent he had and was not absolutely certain of what the content of the Bill should be. He said it would appear to be so. That is not a categorical assurance that the word should be either "sum" or "sums."
Those accustomed to dealing with these difficult problems know that there are often reasons, which escape one on First Reading of a clause, as to why words should appear in the plural or the singular, until one has had an explanation from those who do nothing but draft Clauses and have regard to precedents. Those are two very profound reasons why this Motion should be accepted.
The third reason is that, immediately this point came up, I asked your predecessor in the Chair whether he was ruling 241 that this was a printers' error which could be corrected by the Chair within its discretion. He ruled that this was not so. He said that of course he was not ruling that. I asked him that question because I anticipated the difficulty we might be in.
The fourth reason is that if it is indeed a mistake and can, as has now been established on the ruling of the Chair, only be corrected by an amendment moved by the Government, this could only be done at a later stage of the Bill. But according to the Order Paper, to our Whip, and to the Whip sent to the Tory Party, all stages of the Bill are proposed to be taken now. The Government are proposing to go through Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. As you are aware, Sir, it is impossible to do that and to have an amendment. That is not within our rules.
For all those reasons, therefore, it is obvious that we cannot possibly proceed with the Bill. The Government have bungled it. It is unfortunate, but there it is. This has only been discovered because the Opposition has made a special point of raising this matter—against arduous difficulties—as, indeed, it should, in the acceptance of the Ruling given by the Chair that the whole of the Bill cannot be discussed at all, based on a precedent going back to 1913.
When one of my right hon. Friends asked if it was the position that we could vote for or against but not discuss it, the answer was—and I took down the words—"That is roughly the position." In spite of all these difficulties, the Opposition, determined to carry out its duty of improving the Bill, discovered a fundamental error, embarrassing to Members opposite. It is because of this that I appeal to the Leader of the House to get the Committee out of its embarrassment by accepting the Motion.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
Perhaps I might elaborate a little on what I said earlier—

§ Mr. Mellish
On a point of order, Sir William. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already spoken on this Motion. Does that meant that one can speak twice?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The House is in Committee and it is quite in order 242 for an hon. Member to speak more than once.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I am grateful for your Ruling, Sir William, because I have been watching with the greatest interest Members opposite intervening more than once in the same discussion, and I am glad you have allowed me to do the same.
The Opposition has made a mountain out of this minute molehill, and it keeps on reassuring us that it apparently does not wish to impede doctors from getting their pay; yet has done its best to drag the discussion out as long as possible.
I think that the Committee is genuinely under a delusion in moving to report Progress. I suggest that the way to read the subjection is as follows: The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums. That is, in effect, what the subsection means, and it is customary drafting to do it in this way of putting the means whereby one does it and the power to do in front of what power one is in fact going to exercise. That is customary in Parliamentary drafting, and there is nothing unusual about that.
I come back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I think that we would certainly have to have somewhere in the Clause "sum" or "sums." I agree with that. We must have that, and we have it. It is just a question of which comes first. I suggest that because we have it it is totally unnecessary to repeat it.

§ Mr. Willis
On a point of order, Sir William. Is it in order to discuss proposed amendments to this subsection? The hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing the way in which the subsection should be amended.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
Before you give your Ruling on that, Sir William, may I say that the pretext for this Motion to report Progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Surely any Motion has a pretext. There is nothing wrong in that. The pretext for this Motion to report Progress was because of the issue of the word "sums." That was the issue, 243 and I submit that there is nothing out of order in what I am trying to say.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I appreciate the position as stated by the hon. Member who has the Floor of the Committee. I think that he was speaking to the Motion to report Progress, and that was quite in order.

§ Mr. Diamond
On a point of order, Sir William. After hon. Members have been speaking with great seriousness about the difficulty of the Committee, and after I have advanced four profound reasons why the Motion should be accepted, is it in order to use the word "pretext" which challenges the sincerity and honour of every hon. Member who has spoken from this side of the Committee?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I am bound to say that I hardly feel that we should be so thin-skinned as that.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
During the course of our proceedings I have been astounded at the ignorance of some hon. Gentlemen of the way we run the finances of this country through Parliament, but I never expected to hear the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) who has, after all, considerable experience and knowledge of the English language to make a suggestion as ludicrous as that he has just made. Certainly I had no malice aforethought in using that word. I thought that all legislation had a pretext of some sort. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reason."] Any Motion moved in this House has some pretext for it. I confess, though, that when hon. Gentlemen move Amendments late at night I sometimes wonder whether they have any pretext for doing so. On this issue I thought that in using the word "pretext" I was using a perfectly ordinary English word to mean what the dictionary meant it to mean. I intended to impute nothing to hon. Members opposite.
1.45 a.m.
To return to the question of "sum" or "sums", I was trying to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Barking raised with me. I agree that we must have the qualification in 244 the plural somewhere in the Clause. However, because we have it we do not need to go on repeating it. We can use the plural to include both. It so happens that the way the Clause has been drafted has involved the collective word being used before the separation. If it was customary for this sort of Clause to be worded the other way round, I would prefer that, but it is not customary. There is nothing unusual about using the collective word in advance of the separation of singular and plural.

§ Mr. Driberg
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that in some forms of drafting it may be desirable when there is repetition that the second repetition should be a shortened form of the first, but the full phrase is always put first and the abbreviated phrase is always put second if repetition becomes necessary. In a Bill concerned with the application of vast sums of money the greatest precision is necessary.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I have already said that if it was Parliamentary custom and customary Parliamentary draftsmanship to do it that way, it might be preferable from the ordinary layman's point of view, but it does not happen to be. The important thing is for us to ensure that both are included. Both are included, and I can see no reason whatever for wanting to put both in twice. I can see no reason for wanting to put the separation in twice. As long as it is there once, the plural will include the singular or the plural.

§ Mr. Ross
I am interested in the rather fanciful explanation given by the hon. Gentleman. He dealt very effectively, but not very convincingly, with "sums" or "sum". Will he now direct himself to the word before "sums", namely, "said"? Does he argue, or will he move an Amendment saying, that instead of saying "said" it shall say "going to be said"?

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
The hon. Gentleman must realise that the sums may comprise a sum raised by Treasury Bills and a sum raised otherwise.

§ Mr. Ross
No.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
All that is in the Clause. As long as the plural and the singular are separated in the Clause, as they are, I can see no reason for 245 repeating it, and the use of the collective noun for the two seems to be perfectly sensible.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
I find it a little difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The phrase in question runs as follows: The Treasury may, issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted 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. This surely means that the Treasury may borrow on the credit "of the said sums"—in the plural. To what can that refer? It can refer only to something else in the Bill, presumably in Clause 1. Clause 1 contains no reference to "sums". There is reference to one sum only—the sum of £42,877,600. I do not think that anybody who examines this can doubt that a mistake has been made. A mistake has been made in the Bill. At the moment it would be rash to try to draw any precise conclusions as to the reasons for this error or peculiarity in the Bill, but the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that it would be quite a different matter if this were not custom.
It so happens that I have with me the Appropriation Act, 1960, which incorporates—.I think that is the right word to use in this connection—the Consolidated Fund Act, and the words used there, again with a single payment, are: The Treasury may borrow from any person, by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sum— in the singular. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Member, who conceded that if what is in the Bill was not customary it would be wrong, can deny that he was wrong in his claim.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I said in my earlier intervention that I did not doubt for a moment that this drafting was different from the drafting which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I said that that did not necessarily make it wrong.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
The whole point is that the drafting is different. The plural has 246 been introduced in error, or for some peculiar reason, but it clearly was not introduced in the previous Measure which the word was used in the singular. That is the position.
In these circumstances, there are only two possible alternatives. Either this is an error which is sufficiently serious for the Bill to be withdrawn or, as the Government may possibly claim, and, knowing what they are like, I mention this to anticipate them, they will say that this is a minor printer's error which can be put right. It is very dangerous to alter a Bill on the ground that it contains a printer's error when it alters the sense. A printer's error which simply involves a mistake in spelling, a transposition of one letter with another, is one thing, but to put a plural when a singular should be there is a different matter and we cannot be treated in that way. I hope that we shall not have any suggestion of that kind from the Government.
I do not pretend to know, none of us can, how this error occurred. I very much doubt whether the Financial Secretary knows. He has been good enough to concede the mistake and we appreciate the fact that he did that straight away. If the Government cannot do better than this when introducing Bills, it is far better that they should come clean and withdraw the Bill. The House of Commons always appreciates it when mistakes are acknowledged and admitted by Members of the Government or hon. Members, and I have no doubt that that would be very much to their advantage.
I hope that they will not insist on continuing discussion of the Bill, for we should then find ourselves in an impossible position. It would be extraordinary if we did and it is all the more remarkable, after all the educative processes to which the Leader of the House referred earlier, that we should have had such an astonishing illustration of the operation of this educative process.
I do not profess to be an expert on procedure and I was not aware how closely the rules of the Committee confine us in discussing a Bill of this kind, but we were told in no uncertain way that it was completely impossible to amend the Bill in any way, and it is therefore impossible to proceed with the Bill as it now is.
247 In those circumstances, I cannot see how the Government can oppose the Motion, although if they announced the withdrawal of the Bill, it would not be necessary for us to proceed with it, and I imagine that there could then be put the Motion to adjourn the debate, or that to adjourn the House.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Mr. Butler.

§ Mr. Jay
I think I could in a moment or two—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I understood that it had been the wish of the Committee that I call the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I did in fact first call the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Jay
I wish to be brief and to help to continue the educative process to which the Leader of the House referred. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) suggested that this Bill followed the customary drafting. I have here a precedent which I think shows conclusively that the word "sums" in this Clause is, in fact, an error, and I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an exact parallel to this Bill in the form of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1951.
Section 1 of that Act, which is in a form similar to this, refers to a single sum—not sums—to be issued out of the consolidated fund, namely £88,421,490. The Act then goes on to Section 2, which is in a similar form to the present Clause that we are now discussing, and reads: The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sum", and then it goes on: any sum or sums… I think that since this is a precise parallel to the present Bill, since one sum is referred to in Section 1 and since Section 2 contains the words "said sum" and goes on to say "any sum or sums", taken together with the precedent to which my right hon. Friend has referred, that leaves no doubt that the present Clause which we are discussing has been drafted in error.

§ Mr. Reynolds
The precedent goes back a long way. I have the Consoli- 248 dated Fund Act, 1877, which also says "sum", in the singular and not in the plural.

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
It came as a complete surprise to me that there was the possibility of a printing error in Clause 2. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has referred to the mistake which he thinks has occurred, and on reading it at first sight I would rather not give an opinion tonight. I think it is too important for us to rush through the committee tonight.
It was our hope to get this business, which is important for payment to be made to the doctors and others. and to regularise our financial procedure on absolutely normal lines, which we shall have to do. But that does not mean that I should try to resolve this matter, which I think needs further consideration in two major aspects, before we make a further statement. It needs reconsideration, first in regard to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary which he made on the spur of the moment, and which I think may well be correct; but that needs further examination.
I have examined the immediately preceding Consolidated Fund Acts, and they contain the word "sums" in a similar Section, but they in fact relate to two sums. So it may be that such an error has crept into this Clause and has, so to speak, been lifted out of the previous Measure, and it may explain what has happened. I would say to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that this is not intentional. It is a pure mistake, and as such it should be corrected in the best possible way.
The first reservation I make is that this matter must be looked at on its merits by the Government and a further indication given to the House. The second point on which I wish to reserve the position, Sir William, refers to you in the Chair. I am informed that it has been the practice on previous occasions, with the approval of the Chair, for printing corrections to be made in the Bill after its passage through the House and before it goes to another place. I believe that to have been done in the past. I do not press you tonight, Sir William, for any ruling on this point. I think it would be quite unfair to the Chair for 249 the Government to ask the Chair to give a ruling on this matter tonight. If we find that there is a precedent for it, a ruling must be given from the Chair, not from me. That is the second aspect of the matter which I think needs proper consideration and for which I think time should be given to the Chair.
2.0 a.m.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said that your immediate predecessor in the Chair, Sir William, had thought that this was not possible. I wish to reserve the position of the Chair to give a considered opinion on the matter, because this may well be the solution to the problem. If it is, so much the better.
I hope the Committee will realise that, in view of the need to have the matter looked at again by the experts to advise the Government, and in view of the need to give the Chair time for further consideration of the possibility of reprinting an error and give a ruling on the subject, this matter needs further consideration.

§ Mr. Diamond
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I am sure he will accept—he will find it confirmed in HANSARD—that I asked that precise question for this precise reason, and the Ruling of the Chair, certainly given immediately, was very clearly given in the negative.

§ Mr. Butler
I only ask that this should have the consideration of the Chair—

§ Mr. Diamond
Reconsideration.

§ Mr. Butler
—the reconsideration of the Chair, which I think is perfectly reasonable at this late hour of the night. In the circumstances, therefore, Sir William, I think we should accept the Motion. I do not think that we can, so to speak, force this Bill through when there is ambiguity on a point of this sort. I appeal to the Committee to realise that this Bill is seriously needed as a Measure to give legal authority for payments to doctors and others, and I hope that, whatever the outcome, hon. Members will give us their assistance at a later stage.
I repeat that I reserve those two matters for consideration by the Government and consideration by the Chair.

§ Mr. Driberg
With great respect to yourself, Sir William, and to the Leader 250 of the House, is it the function of the Leader of the House to reserve the position of the Chair? Is it not for the Chair to reserve its own position, so to speak? We have had a perfectly clear Ruling given—a clear and precise Ruling from your predecessor, as he always gives—and I am sure that all of us understood that there was no dubiety about it whatsoever. Now, the Leader of the House seems to be taking it upon himself —I say it with all respect to him—to go back on a Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

§ Mr. Butler
On a point of order, Sir William. The reason I phrased my remarks in relation to the Chair like that was that I did not want to put the point to you tonight. I wanted simply to give notice to you that, if the Chair would be willing to rule in the clear light of day and reason on what is the practice in this matter, I should be very glad to give you the opportunity. Of course, to put it properly in order, it would necessitate your acquiescence in my statement. That, I think, would put me right with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). Otherwise, I would be entrenching on the privilege of the Chair to state its own rulings.

Mr. Milan
Is the Leader of the House enunciating a most unusual principle, that any ruling of the Chair given at this time of night is in some way or for some reason defective, whereas at another hour of the day it is not?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I shall deal with that position as it arises. The fact is that my predecessor was in the Chair and gave a Ruling. It would be quite impossible that I should be invited to reverse the Ruling of my predecessor. I think it a much better plan that the Chair should have an opportunity to consider this matter carefully in detail and give a decision in due course. I accept the suggestion that has been made to the Chair.

§ Mr. Driberg
Further to that point of order, Sir William. When Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, we are accustomed to his very sensible practice, if I may say so, of asking for time to consider a ruling before giving it. If some new matter is presented to him or some point of order is raised which has not been raised before, he asks for twenty-four hours. 251 He does not give a snap decision. On this occasion, it did not seem to us, as the Leader of the House suggested, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was in any way defective of reason when he gave his Ruling. I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested that a ruling should be given in the clear light of day and reason. The Chairman of Ways and Means seemed to be perfectly compos mentis to me. A clear Ruling having been given, it is an undesirable innovation for the Leader of the House some hours later to suggest that the Chair perhaps did not mean what it said.

The Deputy Chairman
The hon. Member is less than fair. I cannot, and will not, criticise the Ruling of my predecessor, which I did not hear.

§ Mr. Driberg
A jolly good Ruling.

The Deputy Chairman
A precedent is sometimes made of the Chair being granted time to consider something. As a result, the Committee can be more certain of a correct ruling, and I propose to accept the suggestion that the Ruling be reconsidered and a further Ruling given in due course if necessary.

§ Mr. Reynolds
Further to that point of order. We are in the position that the Government, due to their own bungling, are in rather a fix. Obviously, they want to get on with the Bill in the shortest way possible. If they can find some way of getting round the Ruling by your predecessor in the Chair, Sir William, it will be easier for them to get on with the Bill than to print it again and to start all over again from the beginning. It seems unfortunate—

The Deputy Chairman
Order. I must protest that the phrase "getting round the Ruling" is not satisfactory.

§ Mr. Reynolds
Perhaps "getting round the Ruling" is not the right phrase, but I cannot think of a better description of the procedure that we are now following, when the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has virtually refused to accept a Ruling of the Chair made seriously an hour or so ago, which, I thought, most Members willingly accepted. It seemed an obvious, sensible Ruling by the Chair. In effect, the Leader of the House has said that he is not prepared to accept 252 that Ruling and that it must be looked at again. Is that in order?

The Deputy Chairman
I certainly did not hear the Leader of the House say that he declined to accept the Ruling of the Chair—not at all. It was merely that the matter should be reconsidered in view of the fact that I, a different Chairman, am in the Chair. After consideration, I think that the Committee can be more certain of getting a correct Ruling. Surely, that is what the Committee wants.

§ Mr. Swingler
Further to that point of order. I think you will agree, Sir William, that it is not normal in this Committee for the Chairman at a certain hour to give a firm Ruling and then, some two or three hours later, for a Member of the Committee to rise and apply to the Chairman for him to reconsider that Ruling on the ground that the situation has changed or that it would be convenient to him or to other Members of the Committee to do it. We appreciate the position of the Leader of the House, but suppose that an ordinary back bench Member of the Committee had got up and said "Well, now, we have had second thoughts on the Ruling of the Chairman three or four hours ago. Therefore, we would like to move to report Progress. We might like to reserve the position of the Chair on a number of matters"—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. It is my impression that earlier in the evening there were times when hon. Members were very hesitant in accepting Rulings from the Chair.

§ Mr. Parkin
Further to that point of order. What the Leader of the House appeared to be saying was that he would accept the proposition to report Progress with certain reservations. He made two which I will not mention now, but the third—I hope that it is not possible to accept the attitude of the Leader of the House—was that in some way we should agree to shorten the remaining stages of the Bill.
I have sat here patiently through the early part of the Committee stage waiting for the perfectly legitimate opportunity of a back bencher to raise, on the Third Reading of a Consolidated Fund Bill, such administrative matters as fall within the narrow compass of that 253 Bill, whatever it be. I hope that the Leader of the House is not asking back benchers to sacrifice any rights that they have in this respect simply because the Committee has got itself into a great tangle.

§ Mr. Reynolds
I feel a bit concerned about the position which appears to be arising. The Leader of the House indicated willingness to accept a Motion to report Progress but nevertheless wished to reserve the right to question a Ruling of the Chair given an hour or so ago. Would you, Sir William, advise the Committee what the position will be if we report Progress? Presumably, the Committee will sit again and continue consideration of the Clause at some date.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Not necessarily.

§ Mr. Reynolds
Would it be the intention of the Leader of the House to challenge the Ruling of the Chair given an hour or so ago with regard to whether or not this "s" could be crossed off from the end of the word by the action of the Chair?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
To deal with the question of sitting again: I understand that the Question, when it comes to me to put it, will be that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. That surely means there will be a further debate.

§ Mr. Diamond
Further to that point of order. May I suggest that there may be some slight misunderstanding between you, Sir William, and the rest of us as to the words of the Leader of the House? The Leader of the House did at my prompting alter his words to inviting the Chair to give reconsideration. You have by your recent intervention indicated that you meant reconsideration by you. I certainly understood it to mean reconsideration by the Chair. And the Chair has given its Ruling.
May I say to you, with great respect, that we have recently come through a very difficult time, and here we are already approaching a situation in which the most authoritative—perhaps with one exception the most authoritative—person on the Government side is inviting the Chair to reconsider its decision? This would immediately be regarded as an attempt by the Government to get at the Chair, which we have 254 only recently discussed. Sir William, I am addressing this point to you because you said, in your willingness that you indicated to us, that you were willing in some way or another that this reconsideration should be given. I am sure, Sir William, it would be most unfortunate if, through your understanding it to be reconsideration by you, the rest of us understanding it to be reconsideration by the Chair, we should, in some sense, by passing this Motion now, be agreeing to a course of conduct which many of us conceive would lead to very considerable difficulty indeed.

§ Mr. Robinson
I would just ask the Leader of the House to clarify one point which he made, I think, more than once in his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government needed this Bill in order that the doctors' pay award could be implemented or in order that the doctors could be paid—

§ Mr. R. A. Butler
With authority.

§ Mr. Robinson
I am glad to have that clarification. The doctors have, most of them, been paid, certainly their current increased salaries, most of their arrears. Authority has been given by the Minister of Health to local executive councils and hospital authorities. So we should not be holding up their pay?

§ Mr. Butler
That is true. Following upon the submission of the Estimate I consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. It is usual in our country to make advance payment. It is also usual to follow through and make the final legal authority with the approval of the House.
As to what we are doing in regard to the Chair, I would be the last person to wish to put the Chair in any embarrassment, and I place myself entirely in the hands of the Chair. I myself did tot hear that particular Ruling and whether that meant the whole question of reprinting. I think it is quite reasonable to put ourselves in the hands of the Chair —that is the expression I should like to use—and ask for a considered view to be given whether there is possibility of correcting the printing error in the late stages of the Bill. That is all I asked. I do not think it is unreasonable—

§ Mr. Manuel
On a point of order. Is not the Leader of the House tending to 255 mislead the Committee? He is saying a "printing error" though this is clearly an error of draftsmanship. There is a distinct difference. When the Leader of the House says he wants to reserve the position of the Chair, I say that is out of his competence. No one here can reserve the position of the Chair on any previous ruling.

§ Mr. Butler
I accept both the hon. Gentleman's points. I did refer to this as a drafting mistake. In regard to the Chair, I must leave it entirely to the discretion of the Chair whether they will care to clear this up after a suitable interval of thought. It may be that the Ruling I did not hear is followed through. If you, Sir William, care not to accept my suggestion, I will understand. I am entirely in the hands of the Chair. A considered statement, I think, would be perfectly reasonable.
In the case of the Government, I simply want time to consider the statement made immediately by the Financial Secretary, with absolute rectitude, that he thought a mistake had been made. Prima facie, I think a mistake has been made. I hope in that spirit that the Committee will accept the Motion.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
In spite of criticisms offered about earlier remarks by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be ungracious not to express satisfaction that he has accepted the Motion. He made two reservations in accepting it—although perhaps "reservations" is not the word he had in mind because the Motion is 256 accepted. He meant to make two comments. He wanted to be sure that there had been a mistake, and that is reasonable. It will be necessary for him to make sure. I have little doubt that he will find that there is a mistake.
Then he wanted to raise this question of the decision of the Chair that has been touched on by my hon. Friends. Perhaps what the Leader of the House meant was that he wished to look at HANSARD tomorrow or the next day to be sure what was said, and if he disagreed with the Chair it would be open to the Government to put down a Motion criticising the words of the Chair. It would not be in order to ask the Chair to rule again, but a critical Motion is sometimes put down, and the Government are free to do it, as well as the Opposition.
The Leader of the House also made a comment about the later stages of the Bill. We appreciate the importance of the Bill. It is because of this that we have scrutinised it so carefully. I think the right hon. Gentleman owes us a debt of gratitude. Where would we have been if my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) had not discovered this mistake? Does this not abundantly prove the value of our serious discussion? Even in the late, or early, hours we can uncover the mistakes of the Government. The success of all of us in doing this will encourage us to further efforts in the future.