Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE.)

HC Deb 22 February 1961 vol 635 cc693-748

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

Mr. Swingler

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chairman

I cannot accept such a Motion.

Mr. Swingler

May I submit my reasons—

The Chairman

No.

Mr. Fletcher

I have waited patiently throughout the discussions on Clauses 1 and 2 without intervening. There are, however, on this Clause certain observations of a serious nature which I think are deserving of the attention of the Committee.

Broadly speaking, the point I wish to make is that Clause—

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it proper that this debate should continue without any representation on the Opposition Front Bench?

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is not the absence of any representative of the Opposition on the Front Bench balanced by the absence of the Attorney-General from the Government Front Bench?

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Fletcher

The argument that I wish to address to the Committee is that the Clause, as it stands, is palpably wrong. It reads: This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960. This is not a new point, because it was noticed by the Financial Secretary. He said: Perhaps I should be in order at this stage"— incidentally, I am not sure that he was, but I hope that he will have an opportunity of elaborating it later— 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961, Vol. 635, c. 194.] I would have thought that it would have been more appropriate for this Clause, when enacted, to read: This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961. Apparently the Government do not take that view. They think it should be dated 1960. There are very serious objections to that form of nomenclature, and one is that there is already on the Statute Book an Act called the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960. It is also known as 8 & 9 Eliz. 2 Ch. 10. That Act was passed on 22nd March, 1960, and it seems highly undesirable that there should be two Acts with precisely the same Title. That will be the effect if we allow Clause 3 to stand in its present form. The Committee should appreciate what it did when it passed the 1960 Act. Parliament authorised the Treasury to …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, the sum of eighty-two million, twenty-six thousand and thirty-two pounds. I do not pretend to understand the reasoning or manoeuvring of the Government, or why they should have thought it necessary to add to the admitted confusion in this Bill the absurdity of asking us to pass another Bill with the same Title. I should have thought—

The Chairman

Bills introduced before Christmas all bear the date of 1960, and changes of date are made in the Public Bill Office on subsequent reprinting.

Mr. Fletcher

I appreciate that. There are two alternatives open to the Treasury. They either could have made this alteration, and called it the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961, or—and I think this more sensible—they could have called this Bill the Consolidated Fund (Number 2) Act, 1960. There are plenty of precedents for that. This is so important that I have with me The Statutes Revised, and I have not been able to find a single case in the history of Parliament in which two Acts with precisely the same Title and date have ever been passed. If it has been thought necessary that there should be two Acts in the same calendar year of the same Title, it has been the invariable practice to call the first Number 1 and the second Number 2.

I do not know whether this date is going to be changed or not. If there is any question of the date being changed without the consent of the Committee—

Mr. Driberg

On Third Reading, or when?

Mr. Fletcher

Perhaps not on Third Reading, I do not know. At a later stage I may, or I may not, move an Amendment in Clause 3. At the moment, I wish to address reasons why the Committee cannot possibly pass this Clause in its present form. I have taken the trouble to search for precedents, and I have here The Statutes Revised, which goes hack to Magna Carta. I have not been able to find a single Statute—

Mr. Wigg

Would my hon. and learned Friend tell us whether he is going to work backwards to Magna Carta or whether he is going to start from Magna Carta and work forwards?

Mr. Fletcher

If my hon. Friend is patient, I am sure he will appreciate the relevance of what I am going to say about Magna Carta to the absurdity of this Bill. The first Magna Carta was passed in 1215. If we look at The Statutes Revised, the official publication, we find there printed Magna Carter A.D. 1297 25 Edward 1 1297 —in those days it was not the custom to say "Magna Carta No. 2." The short Title says that the Great Charter of the Liberties of England and of the Liberties of the Forest are confirmed by King Edward in the twenty fifth year of his reign.

Mr. Diamond

That was when minorities had rights.

Mr. Fletcher

When we have an Act like the Magna Carta up to date and modern in its form, I hope that the Financial Secretary will not tell us that this Bill by Clause 3 is to be called the "Consolidated Fund Act, 1960," when there is a Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, on the Statute Book which deals with a totally different sum of £82 million. I mention it to dispose of the argument that what we have is a confirmation of the existing Act, which was what the Bill did in the case of Magna Carta 1297, which confirmed the Act of 1215 on which all our liberties depend.

Mr. Wigg

I hope my hon. Friend will remember that in the Magna Carta of those days there existed minority rights which do not exist now.

Mr. Fletcher

I yield to no one in my desire to stand up for the liberties of the British people. It offends my sense of legislative correctitude and everything else that this important Bill should be brought before us in this state, full of mistakes, muddle and confusion—

The Deputy-Chairman

We are not now dealing with the Bill but with a Motion "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Fletcher

I am obliged, Sir William. I do not intend to say a word about Clauses 1 or 2. I have refrained from mentioning them hitherto. We have had a good discussion on those Clauses, but I am more concerned with Clause 3.

We have heard in our previous discussions that this Bill cannot be amended in Committee and there may be some doubt whether it can be amended on Third Reading. I will not anticipate what may be said on Third Reading. I am anxious that when this Bill becomes law, if ever it does, the date on it does not admit of the slightest confusion. If Clause 3 is allowed to stand in its present form, it will produce the maximum of confusion. It will be identical with the Title of the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, which has already been passed.

The muddle does not finish there, because there is a further error in this Bill which I wish to explain in some detail. At the top of the Bill, before the words, "Consolidated Fund" will be seen, "9 Eliz. 2". "Eliz" is short for "Elizabeth"—

The Deputy-Chairman

We are now debating a Motion that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. We cannot go outside that.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not propose to go outside that. Clause 3 is entitled "Short title." I do not want to elaborate what I have to say, but in view of your observations I may have to be a little elementary and go back a little and explain the significance of a Short Title to a Bill. Here again I have a great deal of authority on the subject. In recent years a very curious system of chronology in relation to Acts of Parliament was introduced with the result that nowadays there are two different methods by which Acts of Parliament, whether with or without a short title, can be identified.

1.0 a.m.

The Deputy-Chairman

The short title is not in Clause 3.

Mr. Fletcher

With great respect, Sir William, if you look at Clause 3 there is a shoulder note—"Short title". The whole object of Clause 3 is to give the Bill a short title.

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, but the shoulder note "Short title" is not debatable on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher

I am obliged, Sir William. I am not proposing to debate the accuracy or the relevance of the shoulder note. I am perfectly content that it should stay as it is. But what I would respectfully suggest is that that shoulder note in the margin must be construed as having some reference to Clause 3. Otherwise I would find is very difficult to know what purpose it has. I agree that it is not part of the Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman

Whatever purpose it may have, it does not arise on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. I submit to you, Sir William, that my hon. Friend's point has been misunderstood. As I understand him, he is not suggesting for a moment that the words "Short title", form part of Clause 3; nor is he seeking to debate them one way or the other. He is submitting an argument about Clause 3, and he is using these words "Short title" in the margin in illustration of the argument about Clause 3 which he is offering to the Committee. Surely that must be in order.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think it would be better if we could get back to the hon. Member's speech on the Question "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fletcher

All I am suggesting is that Clause 3 as it stands is totally inappropriate. What I was proposing to say was this, As far as I can understand this rather comic Bill, the only object of Clause 3 is to give the Bill a short title. I know that the shoulder note is not part of the Bill, but the purpose of having Clause 3 at all, in so far as it has a purpose, must be that the Bill should have a short title. I hope I have carried the Committee with me so far.

That being so, may I now proceed to the next stage of my argument, which is this. If the Bill is to have a short title—and I hope I shall carry the Committee with me on this point—it is desirable that it should be the right short title. What I have submitted is that the present short title cannot possibly be the right one. It must be wrong, because it is so confusing and ambiguous. I do not think that I would be fulfilling my duty to the Committee unless I went on to explain why I think the short title is wrong, why it is defective, how it ought to be corrected and the various alternatives that could be substituted for it.

I have already indicated that there are two possible alternatives which would make sense. One would be to call it the Consolidated Fund Act, 1961, and another would be to call it the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1960.

Sir E. Boyle

indicated dissent.

Mr. Fletcher

The Financial Secretary shakes his head. He does not like either of those alternatives.

I regret this because I am afraid that inevitably it will prolong my speech to some extent, but I am driven to offer the Financial Secretary a third choice, which I hope will be acceptable. He is as anxious as I am—and I am doing this only to help him—that we should have a Short Title which is correct. That is why I thought I should be in order in drawing attention to the fact that at the top of the Bill there are the words, "9 Eliz. 2." They are words which the Minister has put on the Bill. I want to consider whether it would not be better instead of allowing this Measure to be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, that there should be substituted "9 Eliz. Chap. 2." That is a possible alternative and one for which there are precedents throughout the centuries.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am not at all contented with this method of suggesting alternatives. The debate must be confined to what is in Clause 1. This is not the time to propose amendments or alternatives. The debate must be on what is in the Clause.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, in view of the Ruling you have just given, Sir William, would you consider a Motion to report Progress so that we can ask the Government to consider getting the Law Officers here to explain the legal aspect of the matter. We have been troubled all the way through Committee and the Committee has been handicapped by the absence of competent people to advise us.

The Deputy-Chairman

I can save the hon. Member going further. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. If you would not accept that Motion, would you accept an alternative Motion, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," in order that we may explore the possibilities—

The Deputy-Chairman

No, I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. Driberg

On a point of order. I think you ruled just now in your invariably helpful way, if I may say so, that we could not offer alternatives but could discuss only what is actually in the Clause as printed on the paper. Surely we are allowed to say why and if we think that one or more of the words in the Clause is inapposite, out of place or could be better expressed?

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, the hon. Member is quite right and the hon. Member who has the Floor had in fact been doing that for some few minutes.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. In view of the fact that on the points raised by my hon. Friends we cannot get any alteration, would it be possible to have the original copy of Magna Carta?

The Deputy-Chairman

In reply to that question, if the hon. Member really desires to get a copy, I think he will find one available somewhere in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Wigg

In that case, would you consider a Motion for the Adjournment so that we can all go and consult it?

Mr. Fletcher

If it would help my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I have, not the original, but a copy of Magna Carta as printed in The Statutes Revised. I shall be very happy to lend it to him if he will allow me to retain it for a few moments because I have not yet finished with it.

I am most anxious to comply with your Ruling, Sir William, and to keep strictly within the rules of order and to say nothing except why I object to Clause 3 as it stands and why I object to the phrase: This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act. 1960. Quite palpably it is not that because there is another statute on the Statute Book. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley leaves the Committee, may I say that the relevance of Magna Carta is that surely it will be in order to consider whether this Bill should have a Short Title or not. In that context I would point out that Magna Carta has not got a Short Title. Magna Carta, which is the charter of our liberties and which throughout the centuries has been known as Magna Carta to every schoolboy, does not have to have a Clause at the end of it saying, "This shall be known as Magna Carta". It always has been known as Magna Carta. The same applies to other Acts. I will cite some more if it will interest my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

Mr. Manuel

Surely my hon. Friend is rather confusing the Committee. Is not "Magna Carta" merely the Short Title?

Mr. Fletcher

In reply to my hon. Friend, what I was trying to say was that Magna Carta is de facto the Short Title. Everyone knows that it is Magna Carta, and it does not conclude with a Clause 3 or—

The Deputy-Chairman

We are not debating Magna Carta.

Mr. Wigg

Why not "Enoch's Folly"?

Mr. Fletcher

I was only using Magna Carta by way of analogy to explain to my hon. Friend that I think everyone knows that it is Magna Carta. It does not contain a Clause at the end saying, "This shall be known as Magna Carta". Therefore, if it is necessary to argue the matter—indeed, I had not intended to argue it—I would have been content to argue that there is no need for Clause 3 at all. However, I will come to that in a moment. Hitherto I have been content to argue that if we must have a Clause 3 then we must have something which is clear and unambiguous.

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott (Ripon)

Tedious repetition.

Mr. Fletcher

I am flattered that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have been following my argument.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member below the Gangway opposite charged my hon. Friend with tedious repetition which, in fact, is out of order. If he has an allegation to make, surely Sir William, with respect, he should make it through the Chair and not make an allegation which he has not the courage to stand up and make.

Mr. Fletcher

I should be quite content—

Mr. Wigg

Can we have your Ruling, Sir William, on that point. Should not the hon. and gallant Member be asked to withdraw the allegation?

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not know that I heard the allegation, but certainly the words "tedious repetition" were beginning to bring themselves before my own mind.

Mr. Driberg

With respect, Sir William, is not the adjective a matter for opinion? I thought it was rather interesting.

Mr. Wigg

If it was coming before your mind, Sir William, surely until it had fixed itself in your mind, and therefore provoked you to action, it was out of order to anticipate the Chair. Surely it is the right of minorities in the House to have protection from the Chair. In the circumstances, would it not be proper for the hon. and gallant Gentleman either to deny that he used the words or to withdraw them?

The Deputy-Chairman

I heard nothing disorderly going on in the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher

I will now pass to an alternative for the benefit of hon. Gentleman opposite, to another point which I had not even begun to put. It is that there is no need for Clause 3 at all. I will explain why I say that. I say that for the reason that it is a comparative innovation to introduce into an Act of Parliament a Clause saying that it may be cited as such and such. I was just thinking how recent it was.

1.15 a.m.

The Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, which was passed in 1801, is another example. Everybody knows it as "the Act of Union". There is no Section in it saying, "This Act may be cited as the Act of Union' ". It is the Act of Union, and everybody knows it as such. Therefore, the Government do not have to put something into an Act of Parliament saying that it can be cited as such and such.

It is important for hon. Members to understand that the history of the matter is that technically Bills are known either by their calendar year and chapter or by their regnal year. I am not suggesting—I might not be in order in suggesting—that it would be convenient to go back to the practice of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and cite this Measure as "9 Elizabeth, Chapter 2", but that would be much better than citing it as "the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960", because there already is one.

Of the whole variety of alternatives open to the Financial Secretary, why on earth he should put the Committee in the intolerable confusion of choosing a name which has already been chosen is beyond me. If the hon. Gentleman has any children, he does not call them all by the same Christian name.

Mr. Diamond

Not after the Act of Union.

Mr. Fletcher

I am reminded of an Irishman who called his first daughter "Mary". When his wife and he had a second daughter they considered what they should call her and decided to call her "Mary" because they could not think of anything else. It is the same with the hon. Gentleman. He produced a Bill called "the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960". Now he is introducing another Bill and is calling it by the same name. Surely he is not so at a loss for designations as to resort to that kind of repetition. That kind of repetition is far more tedious and intolerable than anything which has gone on here.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

My hon. Friend has made the case clearly that this is absolutely absurd and is a definite example of the looseness with which the whole Bill has been drafted. Can we not at this juncture table an Amendment under Standing Order 40, which says: It shall be an instruction to all committees to which Bills are committed, that they have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit, provided that they be relevant to the subject matter of the bill…. Such an Amendment as I suggest would certainly be relevant.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think I can help the hon. Member. We have already proposed the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," so the time for Amendments is over.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

The Deputy-Chairman

Perhaps I should clarify that by saying that the time for Amendments at this stage is over.

Mr. Driberg

Further to that point of order. With great respect, Sir William, are you implying that we could have amended Clause 2 under Standing Order 40?

The Deputy-Chairman

What I am ruling is on Clause 3. We are now debating on Clause 3 the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." We could not now have an Amendment to Clause 3 on that Question.

Mr. Driberg

Are you suggesting, Sir William, that it is competent for the Committee to have at some stage or other amended one or other of the Clauses? I thought a good deal of delay had been caused earlier by the Government's insistence, after consultation with the authorities of the House, that the Amendment we were talking about before could be introduced only on Third Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is going beyond the stage that we are now dealing with. We are on the Question, on Clause 3, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." On that Question Amendments cannot be considered. That is the question upon which I am now ruling.

Mr. Wigg

In view of your Ruling, Sir William, and in view of the cast-iron case made by my hon. Friend, would you now consider a Motion "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," so that we can argue that the Government should take their Bill back again and reconsider the point?

The Deputy-Chairman

That Motion cannot be moved twice by the hon. Member in this debate. I am not accepting it.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order. May I ask for your Ruling, Sir William, on two definite points? I take it that the Clause is amendable and that although, as you have said, we are on the—

The Deputy-Chairman

Now that the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," has been proposed, the Clause is not amendable. I am dealing with the present stage of the debate on Clause 3.

Mr. Swingler

Further to the point of order. We had a certain amount of argument about this previously in Committee. I take it that if we had not reached the stage of proposing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," technically the Clause would be amendable.

The Deputy-Chairman

I cannot give a Ruling on a hypothetical question.

Mr. Swingler

My question is not hypothetical if put in this way. I take it that if it is shown in discussion that the Clause is clearly unsatisfactory, the Chair has discretion to withdraw the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has referred to this earlier. Is it not the case that the Clause could be withdrawn in that way so that amendment of it can be considered?

The Deputy-Chairman

The Chair thinks no such thing. So it is irrelevant to discuss that which would be hypothetical. What the Committee can do if it does not like the Clause is to vote against it. The Question now being debated is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Mr. Eric Fletcher.

Mr. Harold Davies

Further to that point of order. Quoting from the Standing Orders of the House. I submitted a legitimate point of order in all sincerity. The Clause was simply put to us as the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". How could we make an Amendment at this stage under Standing Order No. 40? Is there any method by which we could do it?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is the duty of the Chairman to keep the debate to the Question before the Committee. The Question before the Committee is on Clause 3, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I cannot be invited to rule beyond that at this stage.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to the point of order. I suggest, Sir William, that the question addressed to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) as to whether the Clause was at any time amendable is not hypothetical. The reason why I put it to you that it is not hypothetical and that we should have a ruling upon it is this. It is, I think, accepted that in suitable circumstances the Chair has discretion to withdraw the Question before the Committee, that Question being "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". That would only arise if, in the opinion of the Chair, a situation had been disclosed which required amendment. But that would not be of any value either unless it was established, not only that there was a situation which required amendment, but that if the Motion were withdrawn amendment was possible.

Therefore, before seeking to ask you, Sir William, whether you will exercise your discretion to withdraw the Motion before the Committee, it is surely relevant to ask whether, if you so decided, the purpose of it—namely, an Amendment—could be achieved; namely, an Amendment to insert "No. 2", "1961" instead of "1960", or any of the other alternatives that my hon. Friend has suggested.

The Deputy-Chairman

There are so many if's in the hon. Member's point of order that I maintain my opinion that it is hypothetical.

Mr. Driberg

Further to the point of order, Sir William. I am sure you realise that these points of order arise from the fact that, in your helpfulness to us, you gave a Ruling a few minutes ago which startled some of us, because we had understood that in the Committee stage of this sort of Bill no Amendment was possible. That was why we were waiting for the Third Reading for the other Amendment which we cannot discuss now, the one we have spent so much time on. You said—I think I have your words right—" not at this stage", "cannot be amended now", "It is too late", or something like that. Does that mean—could you help us by explaining—that at various stages during the Committee stage of a Bill like this one Amendments are in order?

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is not right to try to lead me into discussing past events. My duty is to deal with the stage that is now before the Committee, and it is the stage of debating whether the Clause shall stand part of the Bill. I invite the Committee to continue that debate and come to a conclusion in due course.

Mr. Fletcher

Perhaps I may be allowed, Sir William, to say that I feel that I ought to apologise to the Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—for the fact that my speech has taken rather longer than I intended, and also to you. You will appreciate that I have been subjected to one or two interruptions and points of order. I do not complain of that at all. On the contrary, I have found it most helpful to listen to these points of order and your Rulings upon them because they have suggested to me an entirely new line of argument which I should now like to put to the Committee.

I understand from the Rulings that you have been good enough to give, Sir William, and from the elucidations that have taken place as a result of this ventilation of the procedure, that the Clause is not amendable in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understand that it is not now amendable in Committee.

Mr. Driberg

Not at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher

We have heard in connection with another Clause that it may be amendable on Third Reading—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. The hon. Member must not go further than the Ruling I gave, which is that the Clause is not amendable on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"once that Question is before the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher

What I was trying to say, Sir William, in view of your Ruling that this Clause is not at this stage amendable, was that it seems to me that the Clause in its present form is patently wrong and there have been plenty of opportunities for the Government to amend it had they so wished. This is not a new point: the Financial Secretary was aware of it as long ago as 20th February; he was certainly aware of the point on 20th February, and presumably before then. Therefore, if the Government had wished to put the Clause in a proper form they could have done so, but they have failed to do so.

Therefore, the Committee now finds itself in the position that with Clause 3, as with the earlier Clause, it has no alternative but to accept the Clause, which is bad, incorrect and ambiguous on the face of it, or to reject it. It seems to me that we should be putting ourselves in a totally false position if we adopted the Clause on the assumption that it might be amended on the Third Reading. Any Amendment on Third Reading is most unusual. If the Government fall into one error and make one mistake on a particular Clause, I can quite understand that they might in those circumstances perhaps be able to persuade Mr. Speaker to accept an Amendment on Third Reading, but I have never heard that each of two glaring errors in two separate Clauses could be amended on Third Reading.

1.30 a.m.

That would be an unprecedented situation. I feel vehemently that now we have discovered a second vital error it must undermine any confidence hon. Members have had that Mr. Speaker would have allowed an amendment to Clause 2 to be moved on Third Reading, because he will now be faced with the unprecedented task of deciding whether to allow two separate amendments on two separate Clauses on Third Reading.

We are in a shocking situation. There is the possibility that, if the error in Clause 2 had been an isolated blunder on the part of the Government, Mr. Speaker might have allowed an amendment to it on Third Reading. But it would have been inconceivable that he would have allowed two amendments on Third Reading. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, as some of my hon. Friends wish to speak. For these reasons, the Committee cannot accept Clause 3 as it stands and, I hope, will vote against it.

Sir E. Boyle

I would like to answer two points. First of all, the drafting of Clause 3 is perfectly normal practice. The year quoted in a Bill at this stage is the year in which it was first brought in, and this Bill had its First Reading on 21st December, 1960. That will be Changed to 1961 under our normal practice as soon as the Bill leaves this House and is printed for another place, which does not discuss a Consolidated Fund Bill, as it is a Money Bill. The Bill will, however, be printed for another place, and the title will be changed. The authority for this is in Page 579 of the 16th Edition of Erskine May, Which reads: In practice…any alterations in a bill which are necessitated by the renumbering of clauses or by a change in the date of the citation title, and in marginal notes and headings, which are not technically part of the bill, are made by the Public Bill Office before the bill is reprinted at any stage.

Mr. Driberg

The hon. Gentleman says—as we all know is the case—that the Bill will not be discussed in another place. Perhaps he could explain why it is being enacted …by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.

Sir E. Boyle

It is in accordance with the normal procedure that the whole of Parliament associates itself with our legislation. It is a well-known practice. The hon. Member is raising constitutional issues which go far beyond Clause 3.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what way his quotation from Erskine May was relevant? He said that this procedure which he described could take place in another place in parts of the Bill which are not technically parts of the Bill. In that case, they are not relevant to what we are now discussing, because the words This Act may be cited as the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960. are so far from not being a technical part of the Bill that they constitute Clause 3. It seems to me that a pro- cedure to correct errors in non-technical parts of the Bill has nothing to do with the point.

Sir E. Boyle

I read the quotation rather quickly. The operative words are these: …any alterations in a bill which are necessitated by the renumbering of clauses or by a change in the date of the citation title… and then come the words: … and in marginal notes and headings, which are not technically part of the bill… The words …technically part of the bill… govern the immediately preceding words.

Mr. Wigg

Earlier in Erskine May it says that the Bill remains in the custody of the Public Bill Office and that no alteration is made to it without express permission of the House in Committee in the form of an Amendment put from the Chair. I agree that the words used by the hon. Gentleman are correct, but they are prefaced by the words "in practice."

Surely that means that the rule is not mandatory. It can happen, if there is no objection to it. It is rather like an Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. If there is an objection to this practice—and there is—the substantive rule must apply. No alteration can be made without Amendment, otherwise why are the words "In practice" there.

Sir E. Boyle

The passage I quoted starts with the words "In practice, however". When it says that in practice such and such a thing is done, it means that that is normally the practice of the House, unless the House, for good reason, decides to alter the procedure.— In this case the practice of the House is that the year quoted in a Bill at this stage is the year in which it was brought into the House. That the change is made only when the Bill leaves the House seems to be a sensible practice, and I can see no rational reason for the Committee objecting to it.

Mr. Wigg

It may be a sensible practice, but we are dealing with a point of some substance. Erskine May says that no alteration may be made without the permission of the House. The fact that it is the custom on certain occasions for that to happen surely implies that the custom can be challenged, and that it is not automatic?

Sir E. Boyle

The House is the master of its own practice. The Committee is entitled, if it so wishes, to vote against the Clause on the grounds that it dislikes "1960" in the Bill as drafted.

On the other hand, in reply to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am entitled to point out that the procedure we are following in the drafting of this Clause seems to be well commended both by commonsense and by the practice of the House.

Mr. Silverman

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but I have been looking at page 579 of Erskine May and the paragraph the hon. Gentleman cited. Surely he must be mistaken in thinking that the words which are not technically part of the Bill apply only to the immediate precedent words and any marginal notes and headings. Surely they apply to the whole thing, as can be seen if the whole paragraph is read?

Mr. Diamond

There is a comma between.

Mr. Silverman

As my hon. Friend points out, there is a comma there. It says: In practice, however, any alterations in a bill which are necessitated"— now, by what?— by the renumbering of clauses"— that is quite clearly not technically part of the Bill— or by a change in the date of the citation title, and in marginal notes and headings"— then there is a comma— which are not technically part of the bill, are made by the Public Bill Office before the bill is reprinted at any stage. I submit with diffidence, but with some confidence, that the words which are not technically part of the bill must govern all the matters precedent to it in that paragraph. Therefore, it does not apply to the matter that we are discussing.

Sir E. Boyle

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might take that point. I cannot see any compelling reason for reading the paragraph in that way, and I think that the way I read it to the Committee, suggestion that the words a change in the date of the citation title stand on their own feet, is a justified way of reading it, and I believe is the way the House has understood those words to date.

The final question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) was, why is this not Consolidated Fund Bill No. 2? The answer is simple. Consolidated Fund Bills are numbered according to the Session in which they are presented. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we come, as we shall, to another Consolidated Fund Bill in a few weeks in connection with the Vote on Account, that will be Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, 1961. This Bill being the first Consolidated Fund Bill of the Session, it is correctly described in the print of the Bill, and there is no Amendment to Clause 3 that I need arrange to move at a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Swingler

Would the hon. Gentleman say what it is that determines the year that should go in? Is it the date of the Royal Assent, or what?

Sir E. Boyle

I did try to explain that the date of the Bill will be changed when the Bill leaves the House and is printed for another place. That has been the custom for a long while, and it seems a sensible one. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it he can vote against the Clause.

Hon. Members

Divide.

Mr. Silverman

This seems to be important. It is apparently agreed that when this Bill receives the Royal Assent, if ever that stage is reached, Clause 3 will not be as it now appears. What we have been told is that at some stage or other "1960" will be omitted and "1961" will take its place. To that extent the Financial Secretary admits the whole of my hon. Friends' argument. Let us start from there. The thing as it stands is not as it ought ultimately to appear, and for an obvious reason, because the Clause says that This Act may be cited… Cited for what purpose? It means cited as a statutory authority in a court of law, to deal with disputed litigated issues. Having regard to what we have done in Clause 2, there may be a lot of litigated issues under the Bill. Supposing there were such a litigated issue and the advocate of one party or the other relied on this Bill to establish some point. He would cite the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960.

Suppose the judge's learned clerk, who always assists him in collecting the authorities cited before him, went to the library and brought down the Consolidated Fund Act, 1960—but the other one—and the argument proceeded, with counsel citing the Consolidated Fund Act, and meaning one thing, and the court looking at a totally different Act. It is easy to see the enormous confusion that might arise even in the most lucid and judicial minds.

So it is obvious that one cannot have, unless one wants to make nonsense of the whole statutory system, two Acts cited by the same words or the same Short Title. That appears to be common ground, because the Government are saying, "Of course, you are right, but we cannot make the amendment now"—perhaps, as the Chairman said, because we are now debating the Motion "That the Clause Stand Part", or perhaps we cannot make it anyhow, or only amend it by Standing Order 53 on Third Reading, or perhaps not then, either. But somehow it has to be done.

The Financial Secretary comes along and says that Erskine May says that, in practice, we can do it somewhere else. The Public Bill Office can do it by itself. The Financial Secretary says that the words in the paragraph which are not technically part of the bill apply to marginal notes and headings. I submit that that cannot be true. If it were, it means that the Public Bill Office could make alterations in a Bill which are technically part of the Bill, and then one is in a very dangerous position. It means that the Public Bill Office, if the paragraph means what the Financial Secretary said it means, could alter anything in the Bill, technical or not. Whether it was a technical part of the Bill or not, we would have an amendment by the Public Bill Office. That would be a strange situation. The thing is wrong and has to be put right. The Committee cannot do it; the House of Commons cannot do it; the House of Lords cannot do it, nobody can put it right, only the Public Bill Office. It is a reductio ad absurdum.

1.45 a.m.

I say seriously that it cannot mean what the hon. Gentleman says it means. If we have a part of the Bill which is not technically a part of the Bill at all, as for instance the number of a Clause or the number at the top of the Bill, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and there is something wrong with that, it would be absurd to use our Parliamentary machinery to effect an Amendment of that kind. So long as it was not technically a part of the Bill and it was necessary to put it right, the Public Bill Office puts it right. But it cannot mean any more than that, and if it means only that, this machinery is not available to the hon. Gentleman to correct an error which he admits has to be corrected. The thing is wrong as it is and we must amend it. Nobody can amend it, not even the Public Bill Office, and so we have the absurd situation I have described.

Seriously, does the hon. Gentleman think that this is the right way to deal with a Money Bill at this stage of our constitutional history? Is it right that we should sit through till the early hours of the morning with the Government obstinately forcing it through with their automatic majority, and sloppy voters dragging their weary legs through the Division Lobbies without the faintest idea of what is going on or what they are doing or what is involved? Is this the right way to discharge our obligations? Does the hon. Gentleman really think so? Before he occupied his present Office he used to pay a certain amount of respect to the traditions of the House of Commons. He used to agree with almost all of us that these things are not empty forms, they are not just bits of red tape or formal pieces of procedure. Sometimes they may seem trifling, but their history and purpose are both real. If we have not complied with them, the proper thing to do is to say, "I do not know whether it was the fault of anyone, perhaps it was the fault of nobody but it is wrong." And if it is wrong, let us take it back in decent order and bring in another Measure which is not wrong. Surely that is the right way to deal with the matter, instead of pursuing this nonsense.

I think I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people that the procedure which the hon. Gentleman was relying on in order to correct an admitted error is not available to him. I am saying that once we have reached that stage it is rather sad and sorry nonsense for the Government to persist, relying on their automatic majority at two o'clock in the morning. I invite hon. Members opposite, who care as much as I do for the House of Commons and its traditions,

to agree with me that here we are making a sound and valid point on which we are entitled to their support and we will give them an opportunity to give it.

Mr. Redmayne

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. S. Silverman

Farcical.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 130, Noes 12.

Division No. 65.]	AYES	[1.49 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Forrest, George	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Heave, Alrey
Aliason, James	Gammans, Lady	Noble, Michael
Atkins, Humphrey	Glbson-Watt, David	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Barter, John	Glover, Sir Douglas	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Batsford, Brian	Goodhart, Philip	Peel, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Coodhew, Victor	Percival, Ian
Bidgood, John C.	Green, Alan	Pott, Percivall
Biggs-Davison, John	Grimston, Sir Robert	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bishop, F. P.	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Prior, J. M. L.
Black, Sir Cyril	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bossom, Clive	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Quennelf, Miss J. M.
Bourne-Arton, A.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Rees, Hugh
Box, Donald	Hocking, Philip N.	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hopkins, Alan	Roots, Willam
Brewie, john	Hornby, R. P.	Scott-Hopkins, James
Bullard, Denys	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia	Seymour, Leslie
Butler,Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)	Sharples, Richard
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Hughes-Young, Michael	Shaw, M.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Channon, H. P. G.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Smithers, Peter
Chataway, Christopher	Jennings, J. C.	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Talbot, John E.
Cleaver, Leonard	Kirk, Peter	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Leavey, J. A.	Teeling, William
Coulson, J. M.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Critchley, Julian	Liffey, F. J. P.	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Curran, Charles	Litchfield, Capt. John	Vane, W. M. F.
Currie, C. B. H.	Longbottom, Charles	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Loveys, Walter H.	Watts, James
Dance, James	Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby	Wells, John (Maidstone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Whitelaw, William
Deedes, W. F.	MacArthur, Ian	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	McLaren, Martin	Wise, A. R.
du Cann, Edward	Maddan, Martin	Woodhouse, C. M.
Duncan, Sir James	Maginnis, John E.	Woodnutt, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	worsley, Marcus
Elliott, R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Mawby, Ray
Errington, Sir Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Farr, John	Mills, Stratton	Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Finlay, Graeme	Montgomery, Fergus	Mr. J. E. B. Hill.
Fisher, Nigel	More, Jasper (Ludlow)

NOES
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Greenwood, Anthony	Whitlock, William
Diamond, John	Mendelson, J. J.	win, George
Driberg, Tom	Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Fletcher, Eric	Pavitt, Laurence	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Silverman, Sydney (Nalson)	Mr. Swingier and
		Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

Question put accordingly, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. Speaker

Sir Edward Boyle.

Sir E. Boyle

rose—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. M. Foot

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

What is happening at present is—I will give the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) an opportunity later—that I have called Sir Edward Boyle in order that he might

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 11.

Division No. 66.]	AYES	[1.55 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Gammans, Lady	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Allason, James	Gibson-Watt, David	Heave, Alrey
Atkins, Humphrey	Glover, Sir Douglas	Noble, Michael
Barter, John	Goodhart, Philip	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Batsford, Brian	Goodhew, Victor	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Green, Alan	Percival, Ian
Bidgood, John C.	Grimston, Sir Robert	Pott, Percivall
Biggs-Davison, John	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bishop, F. P.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Prior, J. M. L.
Black, Sir Cyril	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bossom, Clive	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Quennelt, Miss J. M.
Bourne-Arton, A.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Rees, Hugh
Box, Donald	Hirst, Geoffrey	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hooking, Philip N.	Ridsdale, Julian
Brewis, John	Hopkins, Alan	Roots, William
Bullard, Denys	Hornby, R. P.	Scott-Hopkins, James
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia	Seymour, Leslie
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)	Sharpies, Richard
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hughes-Young, Michael	Shaw, M.
Channon, H. P. G.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Chataway, Christopher	Jackson, John	Smithers, Peter
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Jennings, J. C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Studholme, Sir Henry
Cleaver, Leonard	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Talbot, John E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Kershaw, Anthony	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Coulson, J. M.	Kirk, Peter	Teeling, William
Critchley, Julian	Leavey, J. A.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Curran, Charles	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Currie, G. B. H.	Lilley, F. J. P.	Vane, W. M. F.
Daikeith, Earl of	Litchfield, Capt. John	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Dance, James	Longbottom, Charles	Watts, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Loveys, Wafter H.	Welts, John (Maidstone)
Deedes, W. F.	Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby	Whitelaw, William
de Ferranti, Basil	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	MacArthur, Ian	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
du Cann, Edward	McLaren, Martin	Wise, A. R.
Duncan, Sir James	Maddan, Martin	Woodhouse, C. M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maginnis, John E.	Wnodnutt, Mark
Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Worsley, Marcus
Errington, Sir Erie	Mawby, Ray
Farr, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fisher, Nigel	Mills, Stratton	Mr. Peel and Mr. Finlay
Forrest, George	Montgomery, Fergus
NOES
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mendelson, J. J.	wigs, George
Fletcher, Eric	Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Greenwood, Anthony	Swingler, Stephen	Mr. Diamond and Mr. Pavitt.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Whitlock, William

tender the Amendment which was foreshadowed in a statement made on Tuesday.

Mr. M. Foot

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, before you call on the Financial Secretary to move his verbal Amendment, may I raise a point of order with you?

Mr. Speaker

I have not called upon the Financial Secretary to move it. I have called upon him to tender it. If the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to the Amendment which we assume is to be tendered, I think that it is right that the Financial Secretary should tender it first, so that we know what it is, and I will hear the point of order then.

Sir E. Boyle

rose—

Mr. M. Foot

On a point of order, which does not relate to the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to tender. It relates to the whole Bill, and to the Third Reading, and, indeed, it may lead you, Mr. Speaker, to believe that you should take action about the procedure of the whole Bill.

The Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, 21st December, 1960, No. 33, read: Consolidated Fund—Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time this day and to be printed. The Bill says: Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed. 20th December, 1960. It therefore appears that the Bill was printed before the House of Commons had given instructions for it to be printed. I think that this arose because the proceedings on 20th December went later than had been expected by the Government when introducing the Bill. Instead of the Government being able to introduce the Bill and ask for its First Reading on the 20th, it was postponed to the 21st but the Government also—as appears from the date on the back of the Bill—did not wait for instructions for the printing of the Bill to be given by the House of Commons, but went ahead with the printing of the Bill before the House of Commons had given instructions.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this discrepancy, which we have discovered only at this moment, may be one of the explanations for the many defects in the Bill. It would be a great pity, if, indeed, it is the fact, that the Government should have gone ahead with the printing of a Bill for which they had not yet had instructions from the House of Commons. I invite your Ruling on that subject, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it affects the validity of the whole Bill.

Mr. Speaker

In my view, it has no effect on the validity of the Bill. The sitting began on the 20th and the Bill is rightly labelled, in consequence, in relation to the 20th.

2.10 a.m.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the claim that the Financial Secretary has made to move an Amendment under Standing Order No. 53, I submit that the Amendment that he seeks leave to move is not covered by that Standing Order. It is, perhaps, worth while to look at the terms of Standing Order No. 53—it is very short: No amendments, not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on the third reading. I suppose that all that is common ground and that the hon. Gentleman would have to show that the Amendment that he moved was merely verbal before you, Mr. Speaker, could allow him to move it under Standing Order No. 53. Verbal in what sense? I submit that it is clear that "verbal" is used there as being the antithesis of "substantial." It is not the antithesis of "written," because he has moved a manuscript Amendment in any case. "Verbal" must mean something that goes only to the words, and not to the substance. It is clear that an Amendment that went to the substance of the matter in any way could not be in order under Standing Order 53.

I have been at some pains to see what authorities or other precedents there are for Amendment admitted on Third Reading under this Standing Order. Only one is cited in Erskine May and I have not been able to find any others. The one that is cited in Erskine May is in Vol. 160 of the Commons Journal, 1905, at page 401. On that page it says that Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair; and the Chairman of Ways and Means reported, That the Committee had added a new Clause, and made an Amendment to the Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill, as amended"—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to hear what the hon. Member is saying. Will he be good enough to tell me whether that is the instance about the unemployed workmen?

Mr. Silverman

"Ordered, That the Bill, as amended in the Committee, be now taken into consideration:—The House accordingly proceeded to take the Bill into consideration. That was the Report stage. Then, there follows immediately afterwards: A Motion was made, and the Question being proposed, That the Bill be now read the third time…. Verbal Amendments were made to the Bill. And the Question being put:—It was resolved in the Affirmative. What was resolved in the affirmative was, of course, the Third Reading. The verbal Amendments are dealt with in the previous sentence, Verbal Amendments were made to the Bill. I have been, again, at some pains to try to find out what Amendments were made to the Bill, what were the verbal Amendments that were allowed on that occasion. The Commons Journal does not reveal it, nor does HANSARD of the corresponding date reveal it either. I ought to point out that that was a year or two before HANSARD became an official record. In any case, if there were any conflict between HANSARD and the Commons Journal, the Commons Journal would be right.

In HANSARD, it would appear that the verbal Amendments were moved on the Report stage, but that, clearly, is not so. The Commons Journal shows that they were made under Standing Order No. 53 on Third Reading.

But there is no record anywhere of what the verbal Amendments then admitted were. Nobody knows. There is no record of them. The Journal does not contain them; HANSARD does not contain them. There is no record in existence. If we only had what those verbal Amendments were we could make some sort of comparison between them and the Amendment that the hon. Gentleman seeks to move now. If we have not, we cannot make the exact parallel.

However, I submit, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that a fair inference from the absence of any mention at all anywhere on the record of what the verbal Amendments were is that they were of so trivial a nature as not to be worthy of a formal Motion or of appearing upon the record. It may not be the only inference, but I submit that it is a fair inference. That would, therefore, show that the only authority that there is in existence so far as I have been able to discover is that the Amendments that were allowed on that occasion under Standing Order No. 53 were of so insignificant a kind as not to be worthy of setting out in the record at all.

I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to compare that with the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. He seeks in Clause 2 to alter the word "sums"—

Mr. Peter Kirk (Gravesend)

Has the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) forgotten the occasion on 28th June, 1956, when he himself moved an Amendment on going into Third Reading?

Mr. Silverman

I had forgotten that. I am perfectly certain that if the Amendment that I moved on that occasion—I take the hon. Member's word for it—had been anything but trivial, or insignificant, he himself, or one of his hon. Friends, would have been very quick to draw the attention of the then Mr. Speaker to it, and if there had been anything in the point, the Amendment would not have been moved.

Mr. Kirk

rose—

Mr. Silverman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will later be able to tell us exactly what the Amendment was. If he will forgive me, I will not give way to him now because I want to make my own point.

What I am submitting to you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, is that by no stretch of language or imagination can the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman seeks to move be described as merely verbal, let alone insignificant. It is so far from being merely verbal that it has a point of great substance indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This, I think, has been more or less conceded. In the course of the arguments in Committee I sought to get the Financial Secretary to tell me whether he thought that it would make any difference whatever to the Bill whether the Amendment that he was contemplating moving were made or not. He replied, choosing his words, as he told the Committee—and as was obvious anyhow—very carefully, that he thought that the Amendment was desirable.

It was admitted that it would not be right to leave the Clause as it is, and I submit that it could not possibly be. If one is talking about voting money to the Government or allowing them to use money as security for loans, which I think is the precise point covered by Clause 2 (1), it cannot be merely a matter of drafting, having no meaning or no substantial meaning, or making no substantial point, whether Parliament grants to the Government for that purpose one sum or several sums.

It might be different if this were a mere printing error, but we have your authority, Mr. Speaker, for saying that it is not—that the Bill was correctly printed according to the draft made by those who wish to bring it before the House. It came before the House in its correct form, if by that is understood the form in which the draftsmen sent it to the printers, and in which the House, by Resolution, ordered it to be printed.

The mistake, if mistake there was, occurred earlier in a different connection. It cannot be said that this mistake was a misprint. The Bill was correctly printed, and the House dealt with it on that basis. In Committee, there was long debate both on points of order raised with the occupant of the Chair and on the Question that the Clause stand part. The consequences of passing the Clause with the word "sums" in it was debated on both sides of the House, and I do not think that it can be denied that substantial points were involved.

If substantial points were involved, then it is not a case for Standing Order No. 53, because, if at no time has it been covered by that Order, it cannot now so covered because the Committee deliberately adopted the Clause after a Division. As we have deliberately taken that course, it cannot, therefore, be said that, if the House wants now to change the Clause, the change is unsubstantial and purely verbal. If we change it, we change something which the Committee deliberately decided to incorporate in the Bill, knowing that the word "sums" was in it and having had its attention directed to that fact.

I hope I have not spoken too long. It may be that there would be a great deal of inconvenience to everybody unless the Amendment were adopted and made. I submit that that is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker

I am not troubled about inconvenience. My concern is not with inconvenience for anybody. I have had enough of it myself, but I enjoy it.

Mr. Silverman

I hope that goes for all of us, Mr. Speaker. But it is not inconvenience that I am thinking of. I am considering that if this Amendment were not made the Government might feel compelled to withdraw this Bill and proceed de novo with a new Bill, correctly drafted. That might involve the Government and the House in a loss of time and derangement of the timetable, with a great deal of inconvenience. I submit, however, that that is not a relevant consideration. Either the thing is in the Standing Order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I need not trouble the hon. Member with that point. I am the least concerned with inconvenience to the Government or anybody else. As I understand it, whether or no this Amendment is made is a matter for the decision of the House. Whether or no it be accepted is exclusively a matter for me. It is a responsibility which I have to carry, and I do so.

I have listened with the greatest care to everything the hon. Member has said, because I find it most interesting. I would like to deal with the points he raised so as to satisfy him that I have paid great attention. I am wholly unimpressed by the argument that one cannot make an amendment on Third Reading because the House in Committee has accepted, by Division or otherwise, the text of a Clause or any of the Bill as it stands.

It seems to me that that is true of every Amendment tendered on Report, and every Amendment which can properly be made under this Standing Order. This must be a common factor, and it does not impress me.

I respectfully agree that the Amendment tendered must be verbal in the sense of not materially altering the effect of the Bill if it becomes a Statute. It seems to me that that is a point of law for me, involved in the point of order which I have to decide. The conclusion to which I have come on this strict point of law is that a court construing the Bill as it stands would give it precisely the same effect as it would have if the Amendment were made.

For that reason, and because the Amendment would, I think, put in more grammatical form the legislative intention of the House, I think both that it is in order and that it is right to accept it, and I so rule.

Sir E. Boyle

I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, to leave out the first "sums" and to insert "sum".

I do not propose to address the House at length on the Amendment. It may be thought, in view of the words involved, to be a somewhat appropriate Amendment for a junior Treasury Minister to move.

I repeat, in effect, something which I said at an earlier stage of our proceedings. You, Mr. Speaker, have expressed the view that the Amendment makes no material difference to the Clause from the point of view of interpreting it in a court of law. I believe, none the less, that it is right that Clauses should depart from this House in a form which the House recognises to be the right one, and to be grammatically correct.

I believe that, in general, in this House we achieve a high standard of parliamentary draftsmanship in most of the Bills which go through the House, a standard of which the House can be proud. It is understandable how the mistake arose. I do not think that there is very much doubt about it. We have Consolidated Fund Bills, sometimes more than one in the course of the Session. The majority of our Consolidated Fund Bills authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund—

Mr. Speaker

Order. As at present advised, I do not think that the way in which the mistake arose, to use a neutral word, is relevant to moving the Amendment.

Sir E. Boyle

I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to be so brief as to be discourteous. On the other hand, I have made my point.

Mr. Fletcher

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I was about to put the Question.

Mr. Fletcher

Having regard to your Ruling, and to what the Minister said, surely it would be in order for the Minister, if he wished, to apologise to the House for having had to make the Amendment on Third Reading?

Mr. Speaker

I have made the apology for my part.

The Question is, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman

Mr. Speaker, may I, before advancing other reasons for not accepting the Amendment which you have ruled in order, use this opportunity to correct a statement made in the course of my submissions a few moments ago?

Mr. Speaker

With respect, if that goes to anything, it goes to a point of order, and we are past that. I have ruled.

Mr. Silverman

It is not that. It might well be used as a legitimate argument against not my submission to you—that is over and done with—but I am going to argue that the House ought not to accept the Amendment. It might be used against me in debate that I had myself on a previous occasion done a thing which I am now opposing the right hon. Gentleman in doing. I think that I am entitled—

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure. The difficulty is that, having proposed the Question, our debate is now confined to the proposition whether or not the word "sums" should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman

I fully appreciate that, but you heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention. What he said is not the case. I do not want to argue, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself would be grateful to have the point corrected.

Mr. Speaker

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's denial will be sufficient to keep the matter open to argue at some time when it would be in order. At present the Question is, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman

I will not press the matter, Mr. Speaker, if that is your view. Perhaps if it was out of order for me to reply to the point now, it might not have been in order in an intervention to you when we were not debating anything at all. I never did move any such Amendment. The Amendments I moved were totally different.

What I am suggesting is that the House should not accept the Amendment. You have said, Mr. Speaker, that as a matter of law and construction the Amendment will make no difference. It may make it a little more grammatical, but it will make no material change in the meaning of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is no good trying to argue about what some precedent no longer involved did or did not mean.

Mr. Silverman

With respect, I am not arguing that at all.

Mr. Speaker

No, but others were. They were preventing me from hearing the hon. Gentleman. My criticism was addressed to the noise that they were making.

Mr. Silverman

I am submitting that as the Amendment makes no difference, we should not make it. It would be a great pity if we were to be delayed a long time debating whether or not to make an Amendment which everyone admits would make no difference. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will withdraw the Amendment and allow us to proceed with the Third Reading, which is a matter of some importance. It is conceded now that the Bill is the same whether we make the Amendment or not. Having made this blunder and done the thing in the way they did not want to do it, let us call it a day and get on with the Third Reading.

Mr. Wigg

So that the hon. Gentleman can apologise, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was, in fact—

Mr. Speaker

That is not in order.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

I know that these matters have irritated my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to the extent of him making his protest against this Amendment, but I think that it is only fair that the Financial Secretary, at this stage, should acknowledge that this error which he is seeking to correct—and I welcome that—was pointed out to him by hon. Members of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] There is a formidable Opposition tonight and they are waiting for their laurels for pointing out this error.

If the Financial Secretary intends to maintain his good humour, as he has to- night, he might also maintain his natural sense of gratitude for things done to help him. This has been one example of where we have, by going through the Bill Clause by Clause, endeavoured to help to make legislation better. That is surely the function of a good Opposition. I hope, having done this tonight, that the Government will realise that in our endeavours, Bill by Bill, Clause by Clause—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The rules of order are binding on the Chair as well as the hon. Member, and they confine the debate to the Question, That "sums" stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Thank you, Sir. By my point that we should make this correction I am, in a sense, supporting the Financial Secretary. But I am asking him to recognise that we have done some work and we deserve some gratitude however grudgingly we may be accorded it.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Mr. Harold Davies

I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 53 I wish to move in Clause 3, line 11, after "Act" to omit "1960" and to insert "1961."

I wish to do this in view of the fact that the Short Title of the Bill is "Consolidated Fund Act, 1960" and not "Consolidated Fund Act, No. 2", or "No.1." We all know that there is another Consolidated Fund Act, 1960, and that this—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I did not want to stop the hon. Gentleman, but he is out of order altogether in that I have already asked for the Third Reading. But just to make plain to him that I am not doing anything unkind, I will say that I could not accept the Amendment because, in ordinary practice, that is what happens when the end of a year passes by during the concoction of a Bill of this kind. The relevant alteration in the date is made by the Public Bill Office later—I think on Royal Assent, but I am not sure. It is the ordinary practice to have the date in the corresponding form to what is now stated; and the hon. Member is too late, anyway.

2.37 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)

Like a number of my hon. Friends, I have taken no part in the protracted discussions during the earlier stages of the Bill. But I have been looking forward to this stage, because many of us on the back benches affectionately regard the Consolidated Fund Bill as our time. On this occasion, we have a limited Bill and, therefore, a limited range of subjects which we can raise on Third Reading.

That does not trouble me at all, because I have observed that sitting patiently throughout the proceedings without intervening has been the Minister of Health who, I hope, will now be able to intervene and give as a little help over the point I am endeavouring to raise. I take it that we can discuss the implementation of the measures covered by this narrow Bill, that is to say, these sums applied to the increase in the salaries of doctors and dentists, a matter which we may not—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Subject to correction, I think not dentists, only doctors and staff. The hon. Gentleman will find a guide in the footnotes to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Parkin

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

We have here, on a non-controversial Bill, an opportunity for the Minister of Health to give his views on a subject on which he is an expert and to treat that subject in complete isolation, as it were. What is the best way of administering a system on which these recommendations about the salaries of doctors and staffs were based? As we know, the Minister is an expert on the cost of administration, having been at one time one of the researchers in the Conservative Central Office concerned with presenting to the country the proposition that Government expenditure must come down, particularly administrative expenditure.

The right hon. Gentleman must have studied the matter very carefully. The cost of the Health Service administration is so small as to represent only a decimal point or a minute examination. Therefore, the Minister must have asked himself what system of administration is the cheapest to carry out and what factor should influence him either to adopt or conform to some other system. I hope that before we part with the Bill we shall have an opportunity to hear from him impartially what the results of those inquiries were.

It will give an interesting parallel to the approach of the right hon. Gentleman if we recall that at one time he was a professor of Greek, and I think that I shall only be putting exactly the same question in another way if I say how interesting it would have been if he had been made Minister of Education and had found the same system of administration and keeping of records involved in the payment of professors of Greek as applies to the payment of doctors. If, on his arrival at the Ministry, he had inquired how the salaries of professors of Greek were worked out, he would have been astonished to be told that after the end of the war it had been decided—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have great difficulty in getting the salaries of professors of Greek within the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Parkin

I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that I am really drawing a parallel between the two systems.

We have here a situation where the method of computing doctors' salaries is based on a very different system from any other. I am suggesting that it would be startling to an administrator to be told that the work behind the computation of these sums of money involved the counting of people who are already admitted not to exist—this matter of pools, based on the number of patients which a doctor is supposed to have, and nobody minds if they add up to more than the total population of the country. The right hon. Gentleman must have come to the conclusion that the affection of the doctors towards that system was so deep-rooted that he would affect them unduly if he tried to make any economies in administration.

In nearly every other field the keeping of detailed records is being closely examined on grounds of economy to find out whether it is really worth while maintaining. Local authorities and Service Departments, looking over the record keeping, which has been so enormous, and all the store keeping, have decided to scrap a great deal of it because the bother of counting up is not worth while. The approach which the Minister has clearly made is, I suppose, connected with his unwillingness to upset a traditional system.

I do not want to prolong the discussion. I want to hear from the Minister. I had not anticipated that the proceedings would continue till this hour, but I have in my pocket a report which is a rich field of discussion of the administration and the compilation of salaries in many other professions besides the doctors' profession. If I wanted to prolong my speech and keep in order, I think that I would be able to ask an enormous number of questions about the ideas which must have occurred to the Minister.

I am deliberately cutting my speech short, because I am concerned only, first, to sustain this occasion as a back benchers' occasion to discuss administration, but more important, to get from the Minister at this moment on a non-controversial Bill his expert and considered views on the administration and the work implied by this Estimate.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Pavift

I am pleased that, at last, this Bill has reached its Third Reading stage. It has had a tortuous way through the House. I wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and also to discuss some of the administrative arrangements which arise from this Bill.

We sought to have some discussion on the Supplementary Estimate which gave rise to the Bill. One of the difficulties we were in was that very few hon. Members were aware of the arrangements which were being made to implement the Pilkington Report. I made a claim at that time that the Government were treating this House with a great deal of contempt in refusing to take us into their confidence. During the course of the debate the Minister of Health was kind enough to concede that we were ill-informed on how the administration of these funds would be carried out. In the debate on 5th December, the Minister said: A number of hon. Members made the point, of which I took special note, that the House of Commons should have detailed information as to the result of the considerations of the Working Parties. I certainly take that point and would like to consider how, in due course, the result which is arrived at can best be made available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1960; Vol. 631, c. 1007.] The fact remains that that information has still not been made available to the House. We are in a position of having passed in the Consolidated Fund Bill £42 million the administration of which we are all hazy about. I do not want to delay the House at this time of the morning to discuss the half of this total which goes to hospital doctors, including the whole question of consultants and merit awards and the additional merit awards. It is too late to go into that, but if he is to intervene, I should like the Minister to tell us about what I consider the fundamental part of the pay award, the part which goes to the services rendered by the general practitioner. The basis of the Bill to which we are now giving Third Reading is that it is an acceptance of the Pilkington recommendations as a whole, yet when we discuss it we find that pieces are left out. I should welcome a comment from the Minister on why those pieces have been left out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) raised, earlier this week, the question of the £1 million which is within this fund and which it had been agreed should be a merit award. It is not there. There is a further £1 million which is the sum reserved to which doctors are entitled under the Pilkington award. It is already agreed by the Government that they should have that £1 million, yet when we challenged the Minister in the previous debate he said that was not yet in the Estimates although it is part of the award.

Mr. Speaker

If it is not in the Estimates it cannot be in order in this discussion.

Mr. Pavitt

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to illustrate that there is a great deal of haziness about the administrative arrangements and what is in and what is excluded. The present position is that we have passed a back-pay award amounting to £21,399,700 within this amount, a further £14,578,500 for this year and another £5 million for the Scottish pay award. I should like the Minister to address himself to the question of how this is being distributed. It is obviously not satisfactory if 21 doctors were to receive £1 million each. There should be some equity about the way in which it is distributed. We understand that there has been a working party, but, so far, hon. Members have not had an opportunity of discussing how that working party worked.

I am particularly concerned to know, even though there have been exhortations by the Minister and also by the profession, that out of the sum being given to general practitioners those employed as assistants by them should get a square deal. The House will know that this is a private arrangement. A general practitioner gets a certain sum of money and out of that he is able to employ by private contract an assistant. It was generally understood that assistants employed between 1956, the time that the Royal Commission was first established, and When the agreement was finally reached would have a due share from their principals in order that some sense of equity could be preserved.

The Minister has access to the principals involved because each local executive council has a list of them. Before a principal is allowed to employ an assistant the fact has to be recorded. These facts are available. It seems that we should at least give some protection to the assistants because at present they have none, and will have none, unless the 'Minister provides it for them. It is all very well for the associations of doctors to make exhortations that part of this sum should be passed over to the assistant out of the goodness of heart of the principal. Only the Minister can take steps to see that that actually happens.

I should like to know whether, at the time that the £42 million was being given—over £20 million to the general practitioners—the Minister gave consideration to the question of the amount of work to be done by the doctor in relation to the extra sum being awarded. At the moment, the average number of patients looked after by a general practitioner is 2,282. It would seem that if we are increasing the general bill by an additional £20 million as a result of the Government making the award it should be possible at the same time to see if greater equity could be established between doctor and doctor, and e average list reduced.

This average mean's that doctors at the top of the scale have about 3,500 patients 170 attend to, which means about 17,500 items of service per annum. Others have difficulty in making ends meet on the capitation system with only about 1,000 patients on their books. It seems, therefore, that the Minister in making the award must consider the possibility of making some readjustment within the administration of the general practitioners' payments to ensure a greater share out of the work in response to the award.

Can the Minister tell us a little more about the way in which the capitation has been altered? I understand from a perusal of medical journals in the Library that the capitation fee has been raised to 19s. 6d. per head. At the same time, there has been an increased loading by which those doctors with a certain number of patients are allowed a greater capitation. The loading, I understand, is 14s. for between 501 and 1,700 patients if the doctor should be in partnership, and if he is single handed the loading is between 401 and 1,600 patients.

What led to the division of these figures? Why not 350 patients. What about the doctor who is establishing a practice? Was consideration given to a different spread? Just how did the Minister reach his decision that this should be the way in which the distribution should be made? Was there some special reason why single-handed practitioners should be treated differently from those in partnership?

If the Minister was prepared to treat differently those in single-handed practice from those in partnership, did he give consideration to extra inducement payments and loading to those partnerships operating on a group practice basis where a complete list of extra services are being provided?

It has been the Ministry's policy for a number of years to foster group practice. I commend the Ministry for that. Might not the opportunity have been taken at this stage, with the extra amount of money as a bargaining counter, to increase the trend towards co-operation in medicine, instead of the possibility of acute competition or a scramble by the doctors to get the maximum number of patients on their list rather than to give the maximum amount of service to patients?

Did the Minister consider whether special safeguards were needed for the single-handed practitioner who ceased to be a single-handed practitioner and entered a partnership? The loading is different between the single-handed practitioner and a partnership. If the single-handed doctor decides to go into partnership, does it mean that he loses some of the advantages that he would have had under the present loading system? Does the Bill provide an inducement to persuade people to remain in single-handed practice rather than to enter partnership with some of their colleagues?

A doctor is on call for 24 hours. No doctor can be on call for 24 hours for seven days a week. There are considerable advantages, if doctors can be persuaded to work with other doctors so that they share their duties. In discussing the administration of these funds did the Minister deliberately build in something to preserve the single-handed practice, or was he anxious to persuade the single-handed practitioner to join with his fellows, and did he give some inducement in these awards designed to achieve that end?

I notice that there is a big change in the obstetric arrangements. This is amazing, because there has been discussion on the whole field of maternity services for the last five years. The one result has been this question of the amount of fees. In this award, if I understand it correctly, the obstetric fees are to be raised—this is an item of service—from seven guineas to twelve guineas for a doctor who provides maternity services. A doctor who is not on the maternity list—that means if he has no special obstetric qualifications, but looks after his own patients—gets a rise from five guineas to seven guineas.

This increase in an item of service has come at a time when we still do not know what either the Government or the profession are doing about the recommendations made by a very important Committee called the Cranbrook Committee in England and the Montgomery Report in Scotland. Is this intended to fall in with the proposals put forward by the Cranbrook Committee, or is it separate? Will it interfere with any final arrangements which the profession might reach on obstetrics?

The position in Scotland is particularly difficult, because the deliberations arising from the Montgomery Committee have not been concluded. It means that the Scots will be in the position, once the Bill has had its Third Reading, of receiving more for their obstetrics at a time when they have not yet decided just what service they are supposed to give in respect of that fee.

This is a most important point. If the Government are paying out taxpayers' money to doctors, they should know what service they will get in return. The extent of the ante-natal and post-natal services and the whole gamut of what doctors can provide in exchange for the twelve guineas are very important points, and I shall be interested if the Minister will enlighten us about those matters.

There is another provision in the agreement which affects rural doctors only. Rural doctors receive an additional payment for mileage. The Bill reflects that position. I understand that the fund will be raised to £1,888,000 How much of that increase is included in the sum in the Bill? Is that quite separate from the award, or is this part and parcel of it in view of the fact that the Minister has had a special mileage committee? This is based on the mileage that the rural practitioner gives in providing service to his patients. Hon. Members are not aware how much of this is reflected in the Bill or whether it is part and parcel of the overall blanket acceptance of the Pilkington Report.

Then arises the question concerning rural practitioners of the new difficulties which have arisen since the House first had the Bill printed on 20th December. The rural practitioner is entitled to consideration by reason of the fact that he is a dispensing doctor. What fresh difficulties is he meeting, and has the award taken into consideration the recent changes in the circumstances of a dispensing doctor? The award makes allowance for changes in the rates to be paid per 100 patients. Again, however, I do not quite know what those arrangements are. The House would welcome the Minister's comments so that we may know what fresh arrangements are being made.

The fact that about 2,500 rural practitioners are dispensing something like 10 million items of prescription service a year means that as a result of recent events in this House, the doctors to whom we are now giving an additional award are acting as tax collectors to the extent of £1 million a year by collecting 2s. for every prescription item they dispense.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

They do not like it.

Mr. Pavitt

Has that been taken into consideration? Has the distribution of this £20 million been properly weighed between the dispensing doctor, who must be a tax collector, and the urban doctor, who has no such function to perform?

Another complication is the alteration in the initial practice allowance. This, too, has not been discussed in the House. None of us is clear what is happening. I understand that, under the Bill, a doctor setting up practice for the first time will now receive £1,250 as salary in the first year, £900 in the second year, £500 in the third year and £250 in the fourth year, an arrangement which, no doubt, has been agreed with the profession.

Is this, however, a new approach in the Ministry. In making this heavy weighting in the initial practice allowance, in giving a quite considerable salary, is the Ministry turning its mind from the capitation system? Is this the thin end of the wedge towards a salaried service? Instead of the present system, whereby the doctor is a contractor, is the Ministry trying to introduce the idea that doctors should be on a salary? Eventually a large number of docors may find themselves on a salary.

I am not quarrelling with that. If that is the Ministry's proposal and we have now reached the stage when the Ministry feels that it can start to introduce a salaried service and opportunity is being taken of the award to do so, I have no great objection except that hon. Members on both sides should have the opportunity of discussing it and arguing the merits and demerits of the case.

I wonder whether, in disbursing these funds, the Ministry is satisfied that it is correct to continue the present system of payment to general practitioners. In the Pilkington Report, there was considerable discussion of alternative methods—whether there should be payment by capitation, as at present, whether payment should be on the same basis as dentists are paid, by items of service, and whether it should be as a contract for a specific term of illness, as in the case, for example, of obstetrics, which for this purpose is regarded as illness. There is no doubt that after twelve years of the National Health Service, these questions are relevant. They must have been in the Minister's mind when he entered into negotiations with the profession. He must inevitably have considered them arising from the very long discussions on the Pilkington Report.

There is an arrangement for a supplementary payment of £335 per doctor. I am not quite clear why the sum has been increased to that figure. The other proviso which the Minister has made—we have no information before the House, but I aim advised that it is correct—is that if a doctor is over 70 two of his colleagues have to check his competence before he collects his £335. This seems to me to be rather a strange situation. Here we are paying out the taxpayers' money to men of over 70 just on the hearsay of two colleagues who go along to see whether he is still competent. It is not the responsibility of the local medical committee, it does not seem to be the responsibility of the local executive council; it is just the responsibility of providing any two colleagues to go along and certify that a man of 70, 80 or 90 or older is still capable of giving the general medical services in accordance with the terms of service issued by the local executive council—and then that person can continue to draw the £335.

I wish also to examine the matter of 10s. 6d. plus 5s. per 100 on the list paid to the dispensing doctor. There must be some correlation between this sum and the amount of drugs being dispensed. It would seem that the amount paid at present, for example, for an antibiotic, When is a very heavy sum of money, is through an extra arrangement, so that when, for instance, a doctor is prescribing terramycin, or something of that kind, which will be expensive to the Exchequer, he is able to recover the exceptional amounts. Or does this fresh arrangement which the Minister has made do away with the arrangement which, I understand, prevailed previously and enabled the doctor, in circumstances where the amount of the drug bill was exceptional, to claim that extra amount in addition to these sums?

But now the sum has been increased. Has the increased sum done away with the right of the doctor to claim for the extra drugs? If it has, many dispensing doctors will be in a far worse situation than they were before they had this rise. The doctors have agreed that they will retain some of this money for the purpose of improving general practice. I understand that there is a working party at the moment between the Ministry and the profession—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that all that working party activity is in no way dependent on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pavitt

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; you are quite right.

I believe that that sum was part of the £1½ million that was excluded from this Estimate. Therefore, I should be out of order in pursuing that topic. In the same way, I should be out of order in going into the question of the other £500,000 which has not been included in the Estimates, but is part and parcel of the blanket award—the acceptance of the whole of the Pilkington award.

What I am seeking from the Minister is further explanation of the administrative realities of putting the award into operation. Will it result in a continuation of the harmony which broke out for the first time for a very long while between the profession and the Ministry when the Pilkington award was first jointly negotiated between them? Or does it mean that the arrangements that are now being instituted have—although they have been agreed by the profession—certain things within them which may lead to future difficulties?

Undoubtedly, the wish of the Minister and of everybody Who has the Health Service at heart is that, whatever the way in which they are distributed, these awards will lead to increased and better understanding both between the doctor and the Ministry and between the doctor and the patient, a better Health Service and a higher standard of medical care and attention irrespective of the quarter from which it comes.

We have not discussed the consultants and specialists award, which costs £20 million, but in view of the lateness of the hour it would not be right to detain the House longer. But I hope that we shall be able to go into this matter at some time, for we are deeply concerned about it.

3.10 a.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

Most medical men who read the journals attending Parliament, or who take an interest in HANSARD, will recognise that in my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) they have a good friend. He is interested not only in the welfare of patients—which is what the National Health Service exists for—but also in the activities and interests of doctors. I welcome his remarks on Third Reading of the Bill, which clothes with statutory authority the award rightly made by the Government to doctors after the Pilkington Report.

I must declare an indirect interest. When I first came into the House I wondered whether, if I remained in practice within the National Health Service, it might be considered to be an office of profit under the Crown. Rather than run the risk of being immediately debarred as a Member of the House, I wrote to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—now the leader of the latest Tory rebellion—and asked him to state the position. He wrote that it was extremely equivocal.

Now the House of Commons Disqualification Act has been passed and the position is less equivocal. However, I do not practise within the National Health Service, perhaps regrettably, but my pecuniary interests are no doubt reflected by the standard of professional pay in the Service. I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill, which takes this process to its final stage. Unhappily, we reach that stage with incomplete knowledge of what it will mean administratively. The Minister of Health and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—whom I am glad to see here—should say something about that.

I shall not go over the many points raised by my hon. Friend, but will merely underline some, particularly in relation to Scotland, with apologies for being parochial. What has happened about the Montgomery Committee, and which stage have its discussion finally reached? We have not heard much about the position in England and Wales, but we are very much in the dark about how this money is to be distributed in relation to obstetric practice in Scotland. Many medical men would welcome a statement from the Minister now or perhaps later this week, or next week, about what is happening.

This Third Reading will be welcomed in the medical Press. It may not mean much to hon. Members or to other professions, but the medical profession will know that this matter has at last gone through the House, and that the desperation of the Leader of the House on Monday about getting it through has now gone. It is valid to ask about administrative arrangements in relation to the obstetric list now that Parliament has given sanction to the award.

There is also the question of what is to happen to the moneys concerned with group practices. I recognise that we cannot go into all the intricacies of the distribution of this money, particularly in relation to the general practitioner merit awards. But it is true that the Ministry of Health and, I hope, the Department of Health in Scotland, have been discussing ways and means of translating merit awards into some form of incentive to improve general practice.

In passing—I should have said this at the beginning, but perhaps the oversight was due to tiredness—I must add that I think that the medical profession is deeply grateful to the former Minister of Health for the very sympathetic support he gave to the Pilkington Commission when it was sitting, and for his reception of its Report. I do not want to be offensive, but I tremble to think of what would have happened if the present Minister of Health had been in that office at the time, and had had to argue before the Cabinet about the award suggested by the Commission. I wonder whether the doctors would have got the award at all.

I hasten to add that the doctors are extremely grateful for the treatment and courtesy they have had from officials of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry's staff have been admirable in their negotiations all through this difficult period, and if I give thanks to the former Minister of Health for his conduct of these affairs, I also give thanks to the officials of the Ministry of Health for their work, work which is continuing and which will be stimulated by the passage of this Bill.

That work consists of conducting negotiations with a profession which has a profound distaste of being involved in any State institution such as the Health Service is. Under, to my mind misbegotten, leadership of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that profession entered into an unhappy relationship with the State.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is getting far from the Supplementary Estimate which governs our present discussion.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I did not intend to, Mr. Speaker. I apologise. I was trying to point out, though I was obviously not doing it as successfully as my hon. Friend, that we are now, by agreeing to this award, and by agreeing to the Third Reading, which I hope the Bill will receive, seeing the medical profession launching into a more harmonious relationship with the State than it has so far enjoyed.

One of the points which is still a matter of concern is how the Ministry will use this money which we are voting to improve incentives in general practice. I understand that there is a scheme under discussion at the moment that, rather than consider the question of awards, they might consider means whereby, out of the Group Practice Loan Fund, or out of some other fund that might be agreed, we might be able to help those in group practice who want to own or rent their own premises to improve the standard of general practice.

I do not know how that arrangement will come about. There are many complexities in it, but this matter is being commended to the Ministry by the medical profession and I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully. He has room for manoeuvre with this sum of £42,877,600. It is not all docketted and ticketted pound by pound, and shilling by shilling. We know that from the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pavitt

In fact, £100,000 of that sum has been earmarked for addition to the Group Practice Loan Fund, which is an interest-free fund.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

That illustrates my point. It is very difficult to distinguish one from the other.

We know that the working party discussing the £500,000 does not come under this matter, but it nevertheless raises an interesting point. If, within the settlement which the fund seeks to endorse we are to have this recurring annual grant, what is to happen about the first year which is not covered? That has not been mentioned, though it is relevant to this £100,000. As one of my medical colleagues said, "That is about the only bit we have. It is the only bit that we can say we actually have in our possession". Little did he know that the Bill had not received its Third Reading, and that it was possible that nothing would be given. However, that is a trivial point.

The medical profession is not willing to consider a salaried service. Its members do not like the idea of a salaried service. While it may be the opinion of some of my hon. Friends, and the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, that a salaried service is probably the logical sequence to operating the Health Service, nevertheless this would be the wrong time to start flying kites of that kind because we have at last reached this basis of harmonious understanding with the medical profession of a certain system of remuneration. Let that system carry on for a number of years until it settles down and until we have a chance to see how it works. It might then be fair to consider making certain parts of the Health Service salaried.

There is no argument of principle against salaried service in relation to some consultants or, as my hon. Friend said, in relation to some assistants. There are the lower and higher orders of medicine that seemingly have no objection in principle to salaried service. But the large section in the middle, and particularly almost all the general practice, do not like the idea of a salaried service at this particular stage. I know that Ministry officials are not thinking of it, and the Minister would deny that this is the thin edge of the wedge. In fact, the Minister probably will have in mind extending the idea of group practice loans and of stimulating the idea of health centres, although perhaps not called that, as suggested by a memorandum submitted recently by the Medical Practitioners Union.

I am grateful that I have managed to be here for this Third Reading debate and that I have been called upon to speak. I want to make it clear that while, in the exigencies of the Parliamentary situation, this Bill has come under heavy scrutiny, and no doubt hon. Members opposite in a sense resent the fact that we have had to discuss it through all its stages, some hon. Members and some doctors—particularly myself, as a Member and a practising doctor—resent very much the way in which the Royal Commission, the time not given by the Leader of the House, the discussion of the Supplementary Estimates, and this matter have been dealt with. I am rather glad that the Parliamentary situation has resolved itself so that some of us have had an opportunity to raise our voices.

My hon. Friends welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. We are glad to see that the Health Service is given a new chance for greater success by having a medical profession 100 per cent. in support.

3.22 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

It is natural that my hon. Friends who have participated in this debate have stressed the importance to the medical profession of the Bill to which we are about to give the Third Reading.

I welcome this opportunity to make some observations as far as members of the public are concerned, because one of the useful and interesting developments that has occurred in the Health Service has been the growing interest of the public, as patients, in what happens to doctors. One of the things we have always to be careful about is to see that, when members of the medical profession advance their legitimate requests, and when what they ask for is accorded to them, these should be properly understood by the public.

One of the points I would like to underline is the encouragement of group practice. I have found that there are many patients who have realised more and more the many advantages to be derived by having more successfully run group practices. We all know that there is a great deal the Minister can do, in using the money we are granting, to encourage the development of the service in one direction rather than another. We know that there are certain things he cannot do, but we know there is an element of choice and an avenue of encouragement which he can use.

I would recall what has been said to me on more than one occasion by members of the medical profession during a period when a request for an increase was being considered by the Minister There are doctors very much interested in research. We know that this profession is not the only one where the work they have to do for the public in their day to day routine is sometimes making it difficult for them to follow their inclinations toward research. There is a public interest in encouraging those members of the medical profession who are interested in doing a certain amount of research, because there are two advantages that would accrue.

We all know that sometimes there is a tendency among people to regard the routine work in their own profession as being rather tedious. But I know of some doctors who, in a small way, are beginning their own research scheme and putting together statistics from their own experience. They often say that they find that they are not very easily in a position to go beyond the rudimentary stages. So I welcome this as one of the few opportunities to suggest to the Minister that it might be possible, in using some of the money we are to vote, to see to it that some encouragement is given in this direction.

It is equally clear that when we regard an area like my own area, where there are a number of industrial concentrations and also a considerable amount of countryside, some of the problems arise that have been discussed by my hon. Friends. I wish to ask whether we are doing anything to encourage the use of the combined resources of doctors in the industrial centres and those who concentrate on people in the countryside. There are many ways in which I think that more could be done.

I wish that this part of our proceedings should be treated with seriousness. I have no intention of delaying the House and I will, therefore, confine myself to the few remarks I have made. I am looking forward, as I am sure are my hon. Friends, to the reply of the Minister on these important points.

3.27 a.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell)

The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) invited me to enter at large and in a critical spirit into the principles of administration on which the distribution of doctors' pay is based. But the whole basis of the provision in the Estimate which underlies this Bill forbids that approach. As the House knows, the basis is the acceptance by the Government and the profession of the Pilkington Commission's Report. Of course, it was the basic conclusion of that Report that the payment of general medical practitioners should continue to be by way of capitation and other fees and payment should be made out of a pool. So both parties have, on that advice, accepted the continuance of the principle of that arrangement.

Both sides are also committed to the detailed working out of the Pilkington recommendations by the joint working party which has concluded its labours and by the joint working parties still at work. Here, may I take the opportunity to associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Grennock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) about the great part played in these negotiations not only by the representatives of the profession, but also by the official representatives of the Health Ministries. Their work fully deserves the encomia passed on it in this debate.

The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavia) referred to the undertaking I gave in an earlier debate, that of 5th December, to consider how the result of the working parties' deliberations could be made known. Of course, he and I realise that that result lies in the future and that the limitations within which this debate is held prevent us from even speculating upon or discussing the subject matter of the work of those working parties. But I accept from him that it is right to consider how, when that work is brought to an end, the result can be as widely known as possible, and in the next phase of this operation I should certainly welcome another opportunity when these results could be discussed.

Meanwhile, we have before us the detailed working out of the Pilkington recommendations which was achieved by the first joint working party and which was accepted by the profession and by the Ministries. He showed himself in his speech no stranger to the details of those arrangements. He recognised that it would be impossible in the scope of this debate to enter in detail into the many matters which they touched upon, so perhaps the House will forgive me if I refer to only some of them; but I will certainly look carefully at the hoe. Member's speech and if there are any specific inquiries that I can answer, and that I am not dealing with in my speech, I will do so subsequently.

The loadings, as, for example, for the single-handed practitioners, were arrived at by joint negotiation and deliberation by that joint working party. I do not believe that the loadings for the single-handed practitioners are in any way going to interfere—this was a fear which he expressed—with the development of group practice. I greatly welcome the additional help to the development of group practice Which those recommendations involve, and I do not think that anything is going to hold up the movement which is leading to the spread of group practice. The hon. Member mentioned the increased obstetric payments and inquired about the relationship of those payments to the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee. I can inform the House that the criteria which have been agreed upon for the award of those payments are based upon those proposed by the Cranbrook Committee. There is a corresponding question in relation to Scotland and the Montgomery Committee, and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland informs me that he will communicate with the hon. Member for Greenock upon the Scottish aspect of that question.

The initial practice allowances which have been increased under these arrangements were referred to, and the hon. Member for Willesden, West asked whether this is the thin end of the wedge which he said, if driven in, would be found to result in a salaried service. I would say simply that the desirable object of this is to help to carry forward the movement, which has already gone a good way, of achieving a more even distribution of doctor power over the country. There has been in the last decade a notable fall in the size and population of the areas which are under- doctored, and I am sure that this improvement in the initial practice allowances will help us forward quicker in the same direction.

The hon. Member inquire—dand this is my last detailed point—about the dispensing capitation fee. That does not displace the alternative direct payment arrangement. It does not affect that. That remains in force side by side with the capitation fee.

In concluding, I should like to pick up one word which has been mentioned in the debate more than once, and that word is "harmony." The settlement to which legislative acceptance is being given by the Bill which now passes from us has, indeed, been the means of inaugurating a period of harmony between all concerned, between the professions, the Government, this House and perhaps even, I might say, the public that lies behind us. It will be my personal concern, as long as I am Minister of Health, to see that nothing I can do to foster and strengthen that harmony is left undone.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.