HC Deb 21 February 1961 vol 635 cc314-23
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short business statement.

We have looked into the points raised on the Consolidated Fund Bill in the early hours of this morning and find that there is a mistake in Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government propose to put this right. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, a verbal Amendment will be proposed on the Third Reading of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am advised by the authorities of the House that this is the correct procedure to adopt.

As there is some urgency for the Bill, we propose to take it as first Order tomorrow, Wednesday, followed by the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. We hope that it will be possible to obtain both these Measures. The other three Bills announced for consideration tomorrow will not now be proceeded with.

It may be convenient for me to inform the House that, following discussions through the usual channels, a second day will be given for the debate on defence. The debate will take place on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Speaker

If the House will allow me to intervene to make an apology, the error in the Bill which gave rise to much discussion in the small hours this morning is a fault for which I, in the Chair, have to take responsibility, because the Bill was printed under the authority of the House. I apologise to the House for the error.

Mr. Gaitskell

We are all glad that the Government propose to correct the mistake in the Bill. I am sure that the Leader of the House appreciates that if it had not been for the energy and assiduity of the Opposition this mistake might never have been discovered and a highly embarrassing situation might have been created in the courts.

You have taken responsibility for the error, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it would be appropriate for us to raise these matters with you now or on further consideration of the Bill, but I am a little puzzled by this. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether you deal with the matter now. As I understand, you say that the Bill was printed under the authority of the House. What we do not know is the form in which it was submitted to the printer: in other words, whether the mistake was a printer's error in the true sense of that word, different from the draft as submitted or handed in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury, the Financial Secretary, or whoever it was. Perhaps you would clear that up.

Mr. Speaker

Just now, I used the wrong word. The draft has its origin in circumstances for which I am responsible. The printer accurately printed the draft. That had the effect of producing the mistake.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am still a little surprised. I understood that the Bill was submitted by Ministers of the Crown and I do not see why you, Mr. Speaker, should take responsibility for a Bill which is theirs. As I have said, however, if it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter at greater leisure—I know that an important statement by the Colonial Secretary is about to be made—we would be happy to leave it until then.

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends can discuss the matter at another time. I have no wish to involve the Chair in any verbal interchange between the parties. I merely thought it desirable to apologise for that for which I am responsible in this context.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you are prepared to accept my suggestion that it would be more convenient to take up the matter a little later. Perhaps, therefore, we might ask the Leader of the House whether, at some appropriate stage, he will explain more fully exactly what happened. We are all a little puzzled as to how the mistake came to be made and whose responsibility it was.

I should like to put another question to the right hon. Gentleman. He states that it is proposed to take the Consolidated Fund Bill as first Order tomorrow. He will, of course, be aware that in discussion of the Bill, we are concerned with the question whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. I presume, therefore, that we shall proceed to consider that matter further, but on the basis that the Clause is wrongly drafted. Is that correct?

Mr. Butler

The exact position is that we shall resume discussion on the Bill on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". Then, on reaching Third Reading, we should make the verbal Amendment, which has been done according to precedent on a previous occasion and which, I understand, is quite in order, but which, of course, is a matter for the Chair.

As regards the Bill itself, I said to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends last night that we were all learning. It is a peculiarity that the Consolidated Fund Bill and Appropriation Bill, are drafted by the Public Bill Office. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you have been generous in acknowledging where the responsibility for this comparatively minor error lay. I think that, with this explanation, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we should proceed with discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Gaitskell

Like the Leader of the House we continue to learn. We learn, for instance, that although, apparently, it is quite out of order for any Amendment to be made in Committee on the Bill, according to the right hon. Gentleman it can be made on Third Reading. which is strange, and which we shall wish to. probe further when we discuss the Bill tomorrow.

Is it not strange that we should have to consider whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill on the basis of an erroneous draft of the Clause? How can we do that? It is a difficult situation for us. We are discussing a Clause which, clearly, is wrongly drafted. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw

Leave it to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He does it better.

Mr. Gaitskell

Instead of grumbling, hon. Members should be grateful to the Opposition for rescuing the Government from a difficult situation. Nobody in the Government discovered this mistake. It was the Opposition who discovered it.

Does the Leader of the House think that it will be possible to continue the discussion on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill" when it took three hours to dispose of the similar Question on Clause 1, and of the Third Reading, in which discussion will be much freer, before 7 o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman had better have another look at the timetable.

Mr. Butler

It is the Government's intention to obtain the Bill because it is necessary in the public interest that legal authority should be given for the payments and the national chest replenished. It is vital that the Bill should get through. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience in these matters from his period as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that if we come to the Bill and take it reasonably, we can make good progress tomorrow.

Mr. Mellish

In view of what happened last night, and the fact that we spent so much time debating whether we should be allowed to discuss the Bill. is it not right that, since it has been withdrawn because of the inefficiency of the Government, we should now start all over again and begin where we came in with the debate on the Bill, including new argument on Clause 1?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. It is not the Government's intention to withdraw the Bill. Their intention is to proceed with the Bill and to proceed with it at the point at which we left off, namely, discussion of the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Driberg

Before making his announcement today, did the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the point which troubled a number of us last night? I refer to the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means had given what appeared to be a definite Ruling that the Bill could not be amended in any way. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that towards the end of the proceedings early this morning, he said that he was "reserving the position of the Chair," that some of us queried his right to do this, and that he then seemed to modify a little what he had said about reserving the position of the Chair. Can the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement on that, too?

Mr. Butler

I have ascertained in the time available to me that it is in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is a matter for the Chair. I said in my business statement that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, a verbal Amendment would be proposed on Third Reading. The decision on that matter we must leave to the Chair.

Mr. Driberg

What about the Ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means?

Mr. K. Robinson

The Leader of the House has told us that the debate will be resumed tomorrow on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." He has already told us that it is now acknowledged on all sides that Clause 2 is in error. May we take it, therefore, that he will advise the Commititee to reject the Question?

Mr. Butler

The Government will support in every way they can the passage of Clause 2 and the rest of the Bill.

Mr. Driberg

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he would not answer my question. What about the Ruling which the Chairman of Ways and Means gave?

Mr. Butler

I cannot answer for Rulings given by the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No?"] I can only draft my statement, and as I understand, it is in order for a verbal Amendment to be moved on Third Reading. I have done my best to ascertain that, and I have said that, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, that is what we propose to do.

Mr. Gaitskell

This is a most vague situation. In the ordinary way, when an Amendment is made in Committee, there is a Report stage of the Bill, when the House can consider the matter. If this Amendment is only on Third Reading there cannot be a further opportunity of considering it on Report. Can the right hon. Gentleman throw some light on this? Why this extraordinary procedure which appears to be the rule in this case and in no other case at all?

Mr. Butler

I have also ascertained that on some occasions the Officers of the House have altered mistakes of a verbal character before a Bill went to another place. On this occasion it is proposed, with the approval of the authorities of the House, to make a verbal Amendment on Third Reading of the Bill. We are dealing with a verbal Amendment, which, incidentally, does not make as much difference to the Bill as hon. Members imagine. It is our intention to proceed in that way.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Paget

With respect, when the right hon. Gentleman says that it has been customary for the Table to alter mistakes of this sort, surely that takes place only when it is a printer's error which does not appear in the draft. There is no authority to correct an error in the draft itself. Is that not so?

Mr. Butler

I really cannot make any further statement on the matter—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—except that I have ascertained that it will be in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that we can debate this matter now, but if there are points of order I must hear them. Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross

On a point of order. So that we may prepare ourselves—

Mr. Tiley

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is already addressing me on a point of order.

Mr. Ross

Could you guide us, Mr. Speaker, so that we may adequately prepare ourselves for tomorrow's proceedings. Will this Amendment be debatable?

Mr. Speaker

I can rule on this matter only when the Amendment is tendered to me. I think that that is the right way to do it.

Mr. Tiley

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to question your Ruling—I would not dream of doing that—but there are hon. Members on this side of the House who are rising while these matters are being discussed. Many speeches are being made on the opposite benches. I only wish to draw your attention to the fact that some of us on this side wish to put points—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have difficulty in hearing the point of order which the hon. Member is putting.

Mr. Tiley

I wish to address a question to my right hon. Friend through you, Sir—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member rose to a point of order. It was on that footing I was listening to him. Mr. Lee.

Mr. Lee

On a point of order. Could you define for us, Mr. Speaker, the reasons why, on this occasion, the Chair would rule that an Amendment would be admissible on Third Reading whereas on other occasions there has been need to recommit a Bill in its entirety? For future reference it would be as well if the House knew precisely why we are now to be allowed to make an Amendment on Third Reading instead of the Bill having to be recommitted.

Mr. Speaker

This matter refers to a verbal Amendment. It has not yet been submitted to me. I do not propose to rule about it till that moment. I am sure that that is right.

Mr. Gaitskell

In that case, as I understand it, you are not yet saying, Mr. Speaker, whether the Amendment which, we are told, will be moved, is a verbal Amendment or not. Then, presumably, it is a matter which will have to be discussed tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker

What I heard the Leader of the House say—unless I was guilty of an inaccuracy of hearing—was that what was to be tendered was a verbal Amendment. I do not officially know what happened in Committee. I have read the Bill, from which I cannot help suspecting that the character of the Amendment which might be required would be a verbal one.

Mr. Gaitskell

This is a matter on which there could be more than one point of view. Obviously, it would be a very dangerous thing if the rules of order were so stretched, under the guise that a printer's error had occurred, as to make what would be, in fact, a change of substance.

Mr. Speaker

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there there will be no question of stretching the rules of order improperly. I will study the matter and come to what I conceive to be the right ruling upon it when it arises.

Mr. Lipton

On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of hon. Members, please be good enough to define the difference between a verbal Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and a non-verbal Amendment? I have never been able to distinguish one from the other.

Mr. Speaker

Without discourtesy, I do not think that I will.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. lain Macleod)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I understood that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) was rising to a point of order.

Mr. Tiley

I wish now merely to ask my right hon. Friend—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

It must be a point of order or nothing.

Mr. Manuel

I want to ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Many of us on this side were having extreme difficulty in the early hours of this morning dealing with points we have been discussing just now. The Leader of the House has said that we are to resume consideration of the Consolidated Fund Bill tomorrow on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". He has admitted that the error contained in Clause 2 is to remain. If we adopt the course which, he has informed the House, he will adopt tomorrow, how can we debate that which is in error and which, had things been otherwise, could have led to Amendments being put down in Committee? We have had no opportunity of doing that, and the Clause was in error as drafted.

Mr. Speaker

I understand what the hon. Member wishes, but there is no discourtesy on my part in pointing out to the hon. Member the difficulties which attach to my ruling about things which happen in Committee or the state of affairs in Committee. But that I cannot do.

Mr. Hector Hughes

I understood the Leader of the House said that he proposed that the House should take the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill after the discussion of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It may be that discussion of the point being debated just now will take the rest of tomorrow. In that event, the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill may be pushed out of tomorrow altogether, or, alternatively, be made to suffer the fate which white fish and herring industries Bills always seem to suffer in this House, namely, that they come on at a very late hour of the day.

Mr. Speaker

Would the hon. and learned Member assist by explaining what is the point of order on which he rose?

Mr. Hughes

On a point of order. May I ask the Leader of the House—

Mr. Speaker

I am sorry, but a question addressed to the Leader of the House is not a point of order.

Mr. Woodburn

On a point of order. Is it not the case that the Leader of the House gave a business answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and that the first part dealt with the question that has just been discussed and the second part dealt with the White Fish and Herring Industry Bill? Would it not be in order, therefore, for my hon. and learned' Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and others who are interested in that Bill to ask questions of the Leader of the House on that further business?

Mr. Speaker

I will tell the House my difficulty. I thought that questions upon a statement would have to come to an end at some time or else we would not get on with our business, and in pursuit of that I had indicated that I would' only hear hon. Members at this point on points of order. Had the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeenshire, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) caught my eye earlier he would have been in order, but I do not think that I can allow him to continue now in view of what I have said

Mr. Driberg

On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I have not sought to catch your eye on a point of order. Until now I have not uttered the phrase at all in the last few minutes. Is it not a little hard on hon. Members who genuinely want to put questions to the Leader of the House, arising out of his statement and his evasive answers, that they are debarred from doing so because they do not follow the common practice of saying, "On point of order" when they have no point of order?

Mr. Speaker

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for expressing a sentiment of that character. On the other hand, I would ask the House to take the view that we have other business to do and that perhaps some of these matters of substance may be discussed at another time. I feel that we ought to pass on from this question.

Mr. Driberg

In that case may I ask the Leader of the House, very briefly—thank you, Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

My difficulty is that I should be unfair as between 'an hon. Member and an hon. Member if I allowed myself to indulge my wish to please all hon. Members at this stage.