CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

HC Deb 22 February 1961 vol 635 cc639-93

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(POWER FOR THE TREASURY TO BORROW.)

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)

rose—

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I think it would he helpful if we cleared up one matter before the Financial Secretary to the Treasury continues his speech. You will recall that at our last sitting on this Bill a drafting error was discovered, and the Leader of the House told us in the course of his Business statement that the Government proposed to take a certain course in order to put the Bill right. Some of my hon. Friends and myself would like to query the procedure which is proposed to be adopted. What I should like your guidance on is whether it is appropriate to do that before we part with the Clause or whether the appropriate time to consider that matter would be when we come to the Third Reading of the Bill, which I understand is the stage at which the Amendment is proposed to be made by the Government.

The Chairman

I understand that the Amendment is to be moved in the House, and, of course, that cannot be done until the Committee proceedings are concluded and the House resumes.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. I fully understand your Ruling, and, if I may say so with respect, anticipated that that would be the Ruling you would give. But there is one point which I think might be worth mentioning at this stage. If we concede that we cannot alter the Clause in Committee, then it follows that we pass the Clause in Committee as it is—or defeat it altogether. If we defeat it altogether, that is another matter.

However, assuming that the Clause is ultimately, either after a Division or without one, accepted by the Committee, it becomes part of the Bill and is then included in the Third Reading with the authority of the House itself. It is no longer then a question of any error made anywhere else. If the Committee adopts the Clause, it will adopt it with its eyes open and knowing what it is doing. It may then be very difficult to argue at a later stage that what is involved in any Amendment then about the admitted error in the Clause can be purely verbal.

Unless the matter can be cleared up now, I think Mr. Speaker might have considerable difficulty in allowing the so-called verbal Amendment of which some anticipation was offered in discussions yesterday. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is any possible method of dealing with the matter now, submitting to you that if there is no such method it may be impossible to deal with it later.

The Chairman

We are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". After that Question is put, we cannot amend the Clause. I quoted a Ruling on the subject the other night. It is a very old Ruling, and can be found on page 561 of Erskine May. Therefore, I cannot now accept any Amendment to this Clause. What happens on the Third Reading is not, of course, a matter for me.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. This places the Committee in very great difficulty indeed. We are being asked to pass a Clause which we know to be inaccurate, and we have no guarantee about what will take place on Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker might not accept the verbal Amendment. He may have no power to do so. And even if he accepts it the House might reject it. We have, therefore, no guarantee as to what might happen on Third Reading. We are looking into the future. Meanwhile, we are asked to pass a Clause that we know to be inaccurate, and about which we have no guarantee in the future. I submit that this places the Committee in great difficulty in knowing what course to pursue.

The Chairman

The Question before the Committee is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". We are not exactly passing the Clause. As I have pointed out, I cannot accept an Amendment at this stage.

Sir E. Boyle

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I may be able to allay some of the anxieties of hon. Members. All that is happening on this occasion is that I give notice now to the Committee, as, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did the other day, that I shall be moving a verbal Amendment to Clause 2 at a later stage—that is to say, just after Mr. Speaker has said "Consolidated Fund Bill—Third Reading".

I cannot see that this is very different from the situation that constantly arises when a senior or junior Member of the Government gives notice that he will move an Amendment at a later stage of a Bill. The only difference in this case is that we are in a situation where, as will emerge at the time, it is perfectly proper for an Amendment to be moved, not in the ordinary way on Report stage, but when Mr. Speaker has said, "Consolidated Fund Bill—Third Reading".

I give an assurance that, if we proceed with our business of considering whether Clauses 2 and 3 should stand part of the Bill, I shall move such an Amendment. The House will be perfectly free to accept or reject that Amendment. There will be no question of the House not being able to express a view.

In these circumstances, it would be proper to continue discussion on Clause 2, in exactly the same way as constantly happens when a Minister states that he will move an Amendment at a later stage of a Bill.

Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under Lyme)

Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury purports to give us an assurance that he will move an Amendment, but he cannot give us an assurance that it will be accepted. If we allow this Clause to pass, we pass something which is inaccurate or uncorrected.

On 20th February, you quoted the following words from Erskine May: The enacting words of the bill are not open to amendment. There is no qualification in that concerning any particular stage of the Bill, or any particular situation. It says that the words of the Bill are not open to amendment. We must take it, therefore, that they are not open to amendment either in Committee or on Third Reading.

The Chairman

We are not on the enacting words of the Bill at the moment.

Mr. Swingler

In that case, Sir Gordon, are you saying now that the Clause is amendable? We want to have your Ruling about whether the assurance given by the Financial Secretary means anything or not.

The Financial Secretary admits that there is a mistake in the Clause, but asks the Committee to pass the Clause on the assurance that this mistake will be removed later on. But, according to the Rulings we have been given so far, that is not possible, because it is not possible to amend this kind of Bill at any stage. Are you now saying that it is possible to amend the Clause at some stage, and that there is, therefore, some qualification involved? Although apparently, you have maintained up to now that the Clauses of the Bill are not amendable in Committee, are you now ruling that they are amendable at some later stage of the Bill? I am asking, Sir Gordon, if you will give a ruling for our guidance as to what our attitude should be to the Clause standing part of the Bill, although we know there is an error in it.

Mr. S. Silverman

This is on the same point of order, and it might be convenient to rule on all of these together. The point I put originally was that, even on the assumption that the original error could be regarded as the kind of error which could be corrected by a verbal Amendment, it will cease to be such once the Committee has adopted the Clause in this form.

The Financial Secretary, in a very interesting argument, seeks to get out of the difficulty by saying that there is no difference between the course he is proposing and the course the Minister very often takes when he says to a Committee, "Give me the Clause as it stands and I undertake to introduce an Amendment at a later stage." With great respect, I submit that there is all the difference in the world between what the Financial Secretary is proposing to do and the kind of thing he has in mind.

Standing Order No. 53 makes it clear beyond peradventure that the only kind of Amendment in order on Third Reading is a purely verbal Amendment. By "purely verbal" is meant something which is the antithesis of a substantial Amendment.

If the Committee decides now to pass a Clause which has the word "sums" and does that knowing that it is there, then, when it comes to Third Reading, any argument addressed to Mr. Speaker designed to show that the verbal Amendment promised by the Financial Secretary is in order under Standing Order No. 53 becomes completely unarguable. Nobody in his sense, and no Member of this Committee, would argue that it is one and the same thing and purely a drafting change if the Committee decides to give to the Government "sums of money" and then the House is invited to change that into one "sum of money". To argue that it makes no difference, except a drafting difference, whether the House of Commons gives to the Government one sum or several sums, is manifest nonsense.

I have given Mr. Speaker notice that if any such Amendment is intended I shall invite him to rule that it is out of order. There is one way and one way only in which to deal with this matter, and that is to withdraw the Clause, or withdraw the Bill, and bring in another one. If one could amend it now that would be convenient. Everyone realises the inconvenience of any other course. However, if it is as you say, Sir Gordon—and, for my part, I accept that it cannot be amended now, although we all know it to be wrong and wish to amend it—it will be quite impossible to amend it, as the Financial Secretary suggests, on Third Reading, because at that stage, and I should have thought at all stages, it becomes sheer nonsense to argue that the change proposed is purely verbal and not substantial.

The Chairman

The hon. Member raises a number of points, but they are not really points of order for me. I cannot deal with what would happen on Third Reading. The position that we are placed in is that we have before us the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and, having it before us, we cannot amend the Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. K. Robinson

On a point of order. You have put your finger on the precise difficulty in which the Committee finds itself, Sir Gordon. It is agreed that the Government are to +try to move a verbal Amendment on Third Reading. No one can say, and I submit that you least of all can say, whether Mr. Speaker will or will not accept such an Amendment. There must obviously be some room for argument and discussion as to whether it comes within Standing Order No. 53. Therefore, no one can say in advance whether Mr. Speaker will allow this Amendment. For that reason alone this is the difficulty which we are in. It would have been a better procedure if the Government had withdrawn the Bill and brought it in afresh in its proper form, when it could have gone through quite smoothly, probably in no greater time than it will take now to get the Bill.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Member realises that whether the Government withdraw the Bill is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Further to that point of order. This is a point of order because it is a matter of procedure. We seem to be living in a looking-glass world with this Bill. When a normal Bill is before us, we are able to amend it in Committee, but not on Third Reading. We are all familiar with that situation. We understand that for some reason we cannot amend this Bill in Committee by any means—

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is under a misapprehension. It is Clause 1 which we cannot amend, and we cannot amend Clause 2 because we are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and on any other Bill the same rule would apply.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Sir Gordon? I suppose that your Ruling means that we can debate the subject matter contained in Clause 2, but it is very difficult, when the Clause is acknowledged on all sides as being in error, wrongly drafted, to do that when the Government say that, in order to be operable, Clause 2 must be amended at a later stage.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is not raising a point of order. Of course he can debate Clause 2.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order. It might be helpful to hon. Members, who may not appreciate a possible interpretation of what they say, if I say that Mr. Speaker made it clear in his Ruling yesterday that responsibility for drafting the Bill is that of the Public Bill Office, working on his behalf, fulfilling a duty which is imposed on him.

The origins of that are mentioned on the bottom of page 743 of the Sixteenth Edition of Erskine May simply by reference, and the reference is to the Report of the Select Committee on Public Moneys, 1857. On page 27 of that Report the following occurs: The Speaker of the House of Commons is considered to represent the House in all matters of finance brought before it, and to control all proceedings in reference thereto. As the session proceeds he takes care that any Bill for giving ways and means to the Treasury is kept within the amount of the votes in supply previously granted; and at the close of the session he checks the final balance between the full amount of the votes in supply, including the sum required to cover the interest of Exchequer Supply Bills, and the ways and means already granted, and limits the final grant of ways and means in the Appropriation Act to that amount. In short the Speaker exercises direct control over all the financial forms of the House of Commons.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. We are on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", and I do not relate his observations to that Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I was on a point of order. I was saying that the comments now being made, although I am sure they are not so intended, nevertheless could possbily be interpreted as an unintentional criticism of the Public Bill Office, and therefore of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Committee.

My point of order is simply this. Would you not agree, Sir Gordon, that the criticism of the means by which we amend, if we are later going to do so, is not a criticism which in the ordinary way we are entitled to make of Government action, but would inevitably involve the Chair itself? I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to do that. If Mr. Speaker had indicated—

The Chairman

Order. I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Member is not raising a point of order.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a moment ago suggested that these proceedings might he likened to the looking-glass world. If he is quoting Lewis Carroll, I think that a more correct description would be the Mad Hatter's Tea Party. However, I submit for your judgment that to quote Erskine May in the way it has been quoted is not equivalent to quoting from Holy Writ or the Koran. I challenge the quotation from Erskine May, for this reason.

The Chairman

Is the hon. Member challenging the Ruling that after the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" has been proposed we cannot make an Amendment?

Mr. Price

Yes, for this reason, that obviously this was a codification of the practice of the House.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have given a Ruling on that and I cannot discuss it.

Mr. Price

I come to my second point. Dealing with the matter in a practical commonsense way, we are told that we cannot amend in Committee a defective Clause which has been brought to the attention of the Committee. I submit that, if instead of there being a textual defect in the phrasing of the Clause, the figures had been wrong and instead of £42 million it was £420 million, it would be wrong for this Committee to pass the Clause. If the figures were wrong to the extent of a large sum of money, it would be wrong to do so. Therefore, it makes nonsense of this Ruling.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but it is quite simple. Once the Question has been proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we cannot make an Amendment. If hon. Members think that the Clause should not stand part of the Bill, their remedy is to vote against it. Obviously we cannot have an Amendment.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

The Committee's difficulty is this. We are being asked to accept the Clause as it were on tick. In view of the subject matter of the Clause, that is perhaps appropriate enough, but we are being asked to accept a Clause which we know is defective on the promissory note that it will get—

The Chairman

I am sorry. That is not a point of order. That is an argument for the Government, not a point of order for me.

Mr. Stewart

With respect, Sir Gordon, you called me.

The Chairman

I thought the hon. Member wanted to raise a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman

Sir Gordon, I am not sure whether I heard you correctly a few minutes ago. I think I heard you say that the reason why we cannot put the Clause right now by Amendment is that the time has passed for that; that the real reason that we cannot do it is because we have parted with the Clause to the extent that we are now on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If that is what you intended us to understand, does it involve this, that the Clause could have been amended if only the correct Amendment had been put down before we reached the present stage? If that is so, it increases the difficulty of the Committee tremendously, because if it were the fact that the Government could, by putting down the right Amendment, have corrected the Clause in Committee, their case for persuading Mr. Speaker tomorrow to allow them to amend it on Third Reading on the ground that it is purely verbal becomes utterly and completely hopeless. I hope we shall not proceed on a false basis. The question I put to you is this: is it the case that if we had not yet reached the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", the Government, at the right time would have put down an Amendment to correct this error but that they have missed that opportunity?

It is not a question of criticising anybody—neither you, Sir Gordon, nor Mr. Speaker, nor the Officers of the House, nor the printing department nor anybody else. The question is that because of something which has happened we are faced with a situation which does not express what the Committee, the House and the Government want to do. We are confronted with the practical difficulty of how to put that right. I suggest that there is only one way in which it can be put right, if what you have said is correct and I have understood it correctly; that this could have been amended by proper notice and by a proper Amendment on the Order Paper, but that we are now precluded from doing it only because the Government missed that opportunity and now want to put it right by stretching and twisting the Standing Orders and the long established practices of the House.

The Chairman

I cannot give a Ruling on something that might have happened and has not happened.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Further to that point of order. With respect, Sir Gordon, I do not think you answered the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Because that point has not been answered, it is difficult for us to proceed. If we do not get an answer to the question whether the Government could have conducted business differently, that is to say, putting down their verbal Amendment as they call it prior to the Motion now before the Committee, all the other complications mentioned by my hon. Friend would arise.

The further complication that he mentioned is that if we leave the matter now and do not remedy the deficiency of the Government in not having put down an Amendment before this Clause was discussed, we shall get into a greater difficulty later on. It will then become a substantive Amendment which the Government have proposed. My hon. Friend suggested—and asked for your guidance on the point—how we could avoid a much greater difficulty which would arise if later the Government proposed an Amendment which ceased to be a verbal Amendment at all. In the discussion on business yesterday the Leader of the House said: I really cannot make any further statement on the matter…except that I have ascertained that it will be in order to make a verbal Amendment of this character on Third Reading."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 21st February, 1961 Vol. 635, c. 319] My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has, I think, convinced the Committee that if such an Amendment were moved after this Clause is passed it would not be a verbal Amendment. Therefore, we shall be in a difficult situation and the guidance given yesterday by the Leader of the House is incorrect.

We are trying to escape from a situation which will arise if we go ahead with this procedure. In response to the different points of order which have been raised, Sir Gordon, you have said that we are now discussing the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and, therefore, you have not answered the points of order. If you accept the points of order, surely you should be able to give us guidance to avoid difficulties later on.

The Chairman

It is not for me to give a Ruling on what the Government might have done but have not done. All I am concerned with is to give a Ruling on the present situation.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. You say that you cannot give a Ruling on what the Government might have done. On the other hand, you say now that the reason that we cannot amend this Clause is that we are now on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Do I now understand from you that it would be in order now to put down Amendments to Clause 3 which we have not yet reached?

The Chairman

It would be in order to put down Amendments to Clause 3.

Sir E. Boyle

May I say that the point put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is less formidable that he suggested. We are now concerned with the Motion "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". Surely I am right in saying that in the case of any Committee stage it is open to any hon. Member, during discussion of the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", to draw attention to any drafting in that Clause that he may suggest makes the Clause defective. That is not a point which only arises tonight. It is a point which could perfectly well be raised by any hon. Member on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

In those circumstances, I can imagine that a Minister might say "I will put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage of the Bill". That is exactly the situation in which we now find ourselves. Attention has been drawn by hon. Members opposite to defective drafting. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I myself have given notice that we will put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage of the Bill. I submit yin those circumstances that there is nothing contrary to the procedure of the House in continuing discussion of the Motion on which we are now engaged.

Mr. M. Stewart

The procedure that the hon. Gentleman suggests can work in the circumstances that he describes because there is normally a Report stage during which the Minister can redeem his promise and move any Amendments. But our difficulty here is that we have only the Third Reading, and the scope of Amendments that can be moved on Third Reading is very narrow. We are all in doubt whether the kind of Amendments to which the Minister is referring could be moved on Third Reading. Normally when a Minister promises in Committee to introduce an Amendment at a later stage, he is thinking of the Report stage and he is promising something that the whole Committee knows is within his powers. At the moment, the hon. Gentleman is promising something that neither he nor we know will be in his power to fulfil.

Mr. S. Silverman

Further to that point of order. On the point that the Financial Secretary made, I submit to you, Sir Gordon, that it does not at all meet the point that I raised, because on Third Reading one cannot move any Amendment of substance, any Amendment which makes any change. I do not want to delay the Committee now, but I have here, and will submit to Mr. Speaker in due course if we get so far, the only authority for this, the only other occasion in the twentieth century or earlier—

The Chairman

That may be an argument for voting against the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it is not a point of order for me now.

Mr. Silverman

I am submitting that it is part of the general point of order with which you are concerned, Sir Gordon.

The Chairman

It is an argument against the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Silverman

I am only drawing to your attention, Sir Gordon, the fallacy in the argument which the Financial Secretary addressed to the Committee. That is all I am doing.

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Silverman

The general point of order with which we are concerned is how to deal with an impossible and anomalous situation with which we are faced, and in the course of asking for your guidance a number of hon. Members have drawn the point to your attention. The last point that was drawn to your attention, Sir Gordon, was submitted by the Financial Secretary, and I should like to point out to you—not to him, because I cannot discuss it with him now—that that was completely fallacious. The only case in which an Amendment on Third Reading has been dealt with shows—

The Chairman

That may be a proper matter to raise on the Third Reading, but we cannot raise it now.

Mr. Silverman

I am dealing with the kind of Amendment that can be admitted later. The Financial Secretary has asked us not to persist with our present objections because he is going to do something at a later stage.

What I am pointing out is that part of that argument is that it cannot be done at a later stage because the Amendments which could be moved at a later stage are in their nature so limited and trivial that the only case on record does not even tell us what the Amendments were. It has to be completely unsubstantial and nothing to do with any meaning at all. It has to be merely a correction of some thoroughly mechanical thing, such as words or lines in the wrong order. Anything which involves substance cannot be dealt with by amendment on Third Reading. Therefore, we have to deal with the situation now if we are to deal with it at all.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Do I understand your Ruling so far, Sir Gordon, to be that there is an error and it is understood on both sides that that error might have been dealt with earlier but that that period has now passed and that error cannot be dealt with on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?" It might be that it can be dealt with later and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is arguing that it cannot be dealt with legitimately. I suggest that whether his argument is sound or unsound, now is not the time to argue that point. The opportunity for dealing with the error up to this stage has passed and, unless we want deliberately to delay the Bill—and I know that is not what the hon. Member wants—if we want to get out of the dilemma, or at any rate try to get out of it, let us get to the next stage when at any rate the argument of the hon. Member will be in order. I think we ought to deal with the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." This is not the time to deal with the error. We should get to the point where by argument and judgment of the Chair we can decide whether the point has any substance.

The Chairman

The hon. Member's argument is perfectly correct. The position now is—and I have given this Ruling several times—that at this stage we cannot amend this Clause.

Mr. Swingler

Further to that point of order, Sir Gordon, I think you will agree that some of the trouble has arisen from a mistaken impression in the Committee arising out of one of the Rulings you gave the other night, that is to say, the impression was spread in the Committee that this Bill was unamendable in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), for example, said to the Leader of the House yesterday: I refer to the fact that the Chairman of Ways and Means had given what appeared to be a definite Ruling that the Bill could not be amended in any way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 317.] That was the impression my hon. Friend gained from your Ruling, that it was impossible to amend this Bill in Committee. As I understand the Rulings you have given tonight, you have ruled that Clause 1 was unamendable on the basis of the quotation you made from Erskine May, but that the Clause with which we are now dealing would be amendable in Committee as you have also ruled that Clause 3 is one which could be subject to amendment in Committee. That is how I understand your Rulings.

I want to ask this question of you, Sir Gordon. If the Government agreed to withdraw this Bill and to have it reintroduced and discussed again in Committee, is it your Ruling that Clause 2, with which we are dealing, would be amendable in Committee? Clause 1 on which you ruled the other night is not, we understand, amendable for the reasons you gave from Erskine May, but this Clause is amendable and could obviously be amended by the simple process of the Government withdrawing the Bill and reintroducing it in correct form.

The Chairman

That is purely hypothetical. I cannot give a Ruling on a hypothetical case of the Government withdrawing the Bill.

Mr. Swingler

Would you give us a Ruling? Is Clause 2 of a Bill of this kind, a special Consolidated Fund Bill. normally amendable in Committee? That is not a hypothetical question and it is quite clear. Is this Clause amendable in the ordinary way?

The Chairman

Clause 2 is amendable in the ordinary way, but I cannot accept the Amendment now.

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)

On a point of order.

Mr. Martin McLaren (Bristol, North-West)

May I rise to put a very short point, and one which, I believe, to be a new point, which may help the Committee in the difficulty in which it finds itself in deciding whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill? The difficulty arises from the word "sums" in line 25, whether it should be plural or singular. I do not think that greatly matters because we have been given a great deal of help in the Interpretation Act, 1889.

The Chairman

This is an argument, not a point of order.

Mr. McLaren

I did not rise to a point of order, Sir Gordon. I was one of the few who did not. I addressed myself to the question whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Diamond

On a point of order. I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon, for having allowed me to catch your eye on this fourteenth attempt. We are much indebted to you for having explained carefully to the Committee that the misunderstanding which arose on a previous occasion, when we thought the Ruling of the Chair was that this Clause was not amendable—indeed, that the whole Bill was not amendable—was a misunderstanding, for which we offer our abject apologies. In fact, you have now explained that the sole reason why we cannot amend the Clause is the usual and well-established reason that the Question having been proposed "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we have passed the point of time at which an Amendment is acceptable by the Chair.

As one of those who are anxious that the House should not seem to be incapable of controlling its affairs and appear to act in a most foolish way because it does not understand its powers aright, may I suggest that, in fact, this Clause should never have been called, that you should not have proposed the Question That the Clause stand part of the Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that I shall have the opportunity of reminding you, Sir Gordon, of the well-established practice of the Chair that, having proposed a Question, any Question, and having, as a result, an argument offered on that Question and realising that the Question should not have been proposed, that you exercise the authority and discretion which are undoubtedly yours—I am not referring to the power of the Government to withdraw the Clause, which is not a matter for you, but to your own well-established discretion—having satisfied yourself on the argument put forward on a particular Question that the Question should not have been proposed, you will avail yourself of the opportunity to withdraw the Question because it has now been made clear—

The Chairman

Order. I have proposed the Question. I think it perfectly proper to do so, and I cannot now debate that decision.

Mr. Diamond

I want to conclude with the main reason why it seems best to reconsider the view as to whether the Question should have been proposed.

Mr. McLaren

Before that last point of order I was in the middle of referring to the Interpretation Act, 1889. The rubric to Section 1 reads: Rules as to gender and number. The Section states: In this Act and in every Act passed after the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears…words in the singular shall include the plural, and words in the plural shall include the singular. I ask the Committee to consider the significance of those last words.

Mr. K. Robinson

On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) on a point of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] In that case, may I remind you, Sir Gordon, that the Financial Secretary has the Floor of the House, which position he took up at about a quarter to Seven tonight?

The Chairman

I forgot that, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me in the circumstances.

10.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle

At a quarter to Seven I was, as may be within the recollection of some hon. Members, endeavouring to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) when we began to discuss the Clause at One o'clock a few mornings ago.

The hon. Member asked why the Treasury proposes to borrow from the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland. It is some time since the Committee has debated this Clause of a Consolidated Fund Bill. Therefore, it may be of interest to hon. Members if I explain the position regarding the Bank of Scotland. There are two accounts of Her Majesty's Exchequer, constituting the Consolidated Fund, which are kept respectively with the Bank of England in London and the Bank of Ireland in Belfast. I am trying to continue the educative process which the Leader of the Opposition commended the other night.

The Irish account is a relic of former days—it is a relic of the period following the Act of Union—but still receives the proceeds of Imperial taxation collected in Northern Ireland and meets the costs of the service of that part of the National Debt which is registered at Belfast. Any balance not required for debt services is remitted to the Paymaster-General in London and is used to meet part of the cost of general supply services.

From time to time it may be necessary for the Exchequer for short periods to borrow on overdraft from its bankers, but the Bank of England Act, 1819, prohibits the Bank from making such advances without the express and distinct authority of Parliament for that purpose first had and obtained". Clause 2 (1) of Consolidated Fund Bills seeks that authority.

Quite a number of hon. Members asked whether the Treasury might borrow from Scottish banks and whether the reference to "person" in the Clause would include such banks. Since there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks as there is in the case of the Bank of England, the Treasury may borrow from those banks, and they do hold various Government securities. Since there is no separate Exchequer account in Scotland with a Scottish bank, there is no question of an overdraft being required. The reason is that payments in Scotland for a long while have been effected through the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remem-brancer in Edinburgh, an officer who is not often mentioned in our debates, but to whom I am glad to refer tonight, whose banking account is kept for a year at a time by each of the main Scottish banks in turn.

Mr. Swingler

Will the Financial Secretary mention the Birmingham Municipal Bank? Is it the Government's intention to borrow from that Bank?

Sir E. Boyle

There is no statutory restriction in the case of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, though whether it is involved is not a question I can answer without notice.

Mr. Manuel

Could the phrase "from any person" be read as meaning "from any bank anywhere"?

Sir E. Boyle

The point is that there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks, or indeed from any other banks, as there is in the case of the Bank of England. There is a statutory restriction in the case of the Bank of England. That is the difference.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Does that include the Cooperative Wholesale Society Bank?

Sir E. Boyle

I will not add to what I have said. I have dealt with the statutory restriction which exists. There is no such statutory restriction in the case of other banks.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North also asked why subsection (4) provides for any money borrowed under the Bill to be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. The hon. Member complained of the drafting of subsection (4). The Exchequer account is an ordinary banking account into which all receipts of government are paid, unless Parliament otherwise directs. These receipts constitute one single Consolidated Fund. From this one single account all Government payments are made in the first instance. It is essential for the economic management of the Exchequer month by month that all receipts, including those arising from borrowing under the authority of this Bill, shall be available to meet any payments as they may accrue from day to day. The simplest way I can put it is to say that while the drafting of the subsection may appear clumsy it is a sign that we do not admit the principle of hypothecated taxation. All money is paid into the Consolidated Fund.

There is only one other point with which I shall trouble the Committee. I was asked about the words it is provided that the Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury bills or otherwise. The simplest answer concerning the meaning of "or otherwise" is that the Treasury may always borrow by extending and enlarging the National Debt. That is the most obvious example. I hope that with those explanations of the Clause—and I welcome the opportunity after this long while to debate it—the Committee may now agree that we should pass the Clause. Then, we can come on to the next Clause.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee. I congratulate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on having done his homework. He needed to do it, because he told me on Monday night that the Consolidated Fund was not one to which "one can actually point." It is true that it is two, apparently one in the Bank of England and the other in the Bank of Ireland, not to mention the sort of fluctuating account that runs round the Scottish banks.

The Bank of Ireland has been mentioned for a long time. It is a bank in Eire. I am a little puzzled why we go on having an account there in respect of matters in Northern Ireland. I am still more puzzled why the Bank of Scotland has been left out. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider the practice. It is a long time since the Bank of Scotland, which was at the time the Tory bank, opened its coffers to the gentleman whom nowadays we usually call the Young Pretender and handed to him on his way through Edinburgh on his journey to England the whole proceeds of the gold and what-not that was there. I suppose that at that time that penalty was put upon the bank.

If the hon. Gentleman prefers it, he might at least put in one Scots bank. If he is ashamed of the old bank—the Tory bank—he can always put in the Royal Bank of Scotland, sometimes called the New Bank and sometimes the Whig Bank. Why the Scottish banks should all be left out when half a dozen of them are engaged one after another, I do not know.

I have said what I want to say on this weighty matter, but it is strange the things we keep going in this country and the use and the mention of the Bank of Ireland and the complete silence about the Queen's Remembrancer. I forget the rest of his name, but I know him because he sends me warrants for repayment of Income Tax when I have overpaid it. Why he and these banks are left out altogether, only those who practised this mystery for so long as to be blind to its absurdity are competent to tell us.

Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow Craigton)

I should like to raise a number of points on the Clause, and I hope that we will get explanations from the Financial Secretary. My first point concerns subsection (2), at the end of which appears the statement that section six of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877…shall not apply with respect to those bills", "those bills" being Treasury bills.

I am puzzled why Section 6 of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877, should not apply to the Consolidated Fund Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to make a quotation from Section 6 of the 1877 Act. I shall read the first part of it. The first sentence states: Where in any financial year any Exchequer bills or Treasury bills are or are about to be paid off, the Treasury may, during that financial year, for the purpose of paying off, or of replacing the amount expended (otherwise than out of the new Sinking Fund) in paying off the principal money of such bills, OT of any of them, raise a sum not exceeding the amount of such principal money by the issue of Treasury bills or of Exchequer bills, or partly of Treasury bills and partly of Exchequer bills, according as they think most beneficial for the public service. That is a small part of the Section, but it puts the point in a nutshell.

It strikes me as remarkable that this admirable provision of the 1877 Act should be expressly excluded from this Consolidated Fund Bill. Can the Financial Secretary say why the Government have thought fit to exclude it from the Bill?

Secondly, I should like an explanation of subsection (2), which reads: Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with any interest payable thereon, out of the Consolidated Fund, at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed. Will the Financial Secretary explain what at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter means? Is it purely a financial year quarter? If so, when does it end—on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September or 31st December? If not, what is it?

Thirdly, under the Bill, in both Clause 1 and Clause 2, we have money going in and out of the Consolidated Fund. In Clause 1 we have money being issued out of the Fund, and before it can be issued out of it, the money has to get into the Fund. Under Clause 2 we have the power of the Treasury to borrow money, which then goes into the Fund. Clause 2 (4) provides that: Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. It is all perfectly clear up to this point. If the Government wish to issue certain money out of the Fund, under Clause 2 they borrow the money by Treasury bills and otherwise. They then issue the money out of the Fund under Clause 1. It is also provided that at when the money on Treasury bills or the other borrowings come in, they go into the Fund, and when the Treasury bills and the other borrowings are repaid, they go out of the Consolidated Fund. It is clear from all that that the amounts of money which are coming into the Fund are the same amounts of money as are going out of the Fund. That all seems very reasonable.

However, the point that I want to put to the Financial Secretary—perhaps he can explain this—is that under Clause 2 (3) when we are paying out money whch is borrowed other than on Treasury bills, we are not only paying out the money that is borrowed but we are also paying out any interest payable thereon. What I want to know is how the money gets into the Consolidated Fund to pay out the accrued interest that we are paying out under subsection (3). All the other money that goes in and comes out seems to balance absolutely correctly. Mathematically, it all seems to be absolutely impeccable—all except this interest which is paid on all this money other than on Treasury bills. Will the Financial Secretary explain how the money gets into the Fund in the first place so that we can pay out this accrued interest?

Mr. Swingler

I still stick to the old-fashioned view that it is wrong for the Committee to pass a Clause knowing it to be inaccurate. Therefore, I register my protest at this procedure. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a farce."] One of my hon. Friends says that it is a farce. The proceedings have not been completely farcical, for we have learned a certain amount about the procedure of the Committee on special Consolidated Fund Bills of this kind.

One of my hon. Friends was right when he pointed out to the Chairman of Ways and Means that it is within the discretion of the Chair to withdraw the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", if the Chair is convinced by the arguments that it is wrong to proceed with it.

11.0 p.m.

It is a pity that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not use his discretion in this form so as to get us out of the difficulty which has arisen because many of us have recently discovered the amendability of this Clause. Had my hon. Friend known, when he spotted the mistake, that the Clause was amendable, he would have been prepared to produce an Amendment in order to correct the error. We were, however, given a blanket ruling by the Chair earlier on that suggested that the whole of the Bill was unamendable in Committee. We have been given no opportunity to make suggestions for amendment.

The case is put that if we rejected this Clause it would create difficulties. I do not want to create difficulty for the doctors and dentists who will benefit by the passage of the Bill, but I understand that we have been given an assurance that, although there is no money in the Consolidated Fund, and the Government need to borrow the money, the doctors and dentists have already been paid.

That is a piece of financial wizardry which I am not capable of understanding. I draw the conclusion that even if we rejected this Clause the doctors and dentists would still get the Pilkington award—indeed, they have already got the money. If the Clause were thrown out it would give some time for useful reflection in the Treasury about the importance of producing accurate legislation. This is quite an important thing for the Treasury to be given time to reflect upon, as well as to do a little more homework on the procedures of the Committee of the House of Commons in giving legislative sanction of this kind.

As the Committee has taken many hours to elucidate its position as of now, and as we do not know what the position will be on Third Reading—whether we are being drummed into being accessories to the fact of making an Act we know to be inaccurate and wrong—I feel sure that some of my hon. Friends will wish to make a protest against passing this Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman

hope that the Committee will reject Clause 2, not as a protest against anything but because, on the merits, it would be wrong to pass it. I agree with my hon. Friends who have suggested that the Chairman might have had discretion to withdraw the Question, but if he had, he did not exercise it, and it is not for us to criticise that.

We are left, therefore, with the Motion before us, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". It is true that the Financial Secretary has said that he hopes to amend the Clause at some later stage if he gets it now, but all that is highly speculative. We do not know whether he will be able to move the Amendment he has in mind, whether it will be in order, or whether, if it were in order and moved it would be accepted by the House. Therefore, we have to deal with the Clause as it is now.

We are asked to pass the Clause as it is printed in the Bill. It does not seem to me that the word "sums" is not, from the drafting point of view, very different from the word "sum". I think it makes all the difference in the world whether there is one sum or more than one sum.

If Clause 2 had referred, as Clause 1 refers, to the words: the sum of forty-two million, eight hundred and seventy-seven thousand and six hundred pounds I would have had no objection, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has just given. But it does not do that, and this Clause is one which gives the Government power to borrow.

The context in which these words appear is: The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the same sums … If we pass the Clause in that form, what security will the banks have for any money they advance to the Government? If it had been "the said sum" we would have been the sum set out in Clause 1, and I understand from the Financial Secretary that that is what the Government intended. But we are not concerned with what they intended. We are concerned with what they have done. We are concerned with the words before us.

We cannot deal with it on the basis that if we give the Financial Secretary what he asks for tonight he will change his mind tomorrow, and that the House will permit him to change his mind tomorrow. That could be done, as the Standing Order makes clear, if the change proposed were something insignificant; something one does not have to say; something that Mr. Speaker himself could do without putting it before the House; something that merely involved consultation with the Clerks. It is not that kind of Amendment.

We are dealing with the security which anyone who lends the Government money to the extent of £42,877,600 will get. A security is no security if it is ambiguous. It is not a security if it is indeterminable. The banks could safely advance the money contemplated under the Clause if they knew that the security was to be the sum set out in Clause 1, but it is not to be the sum set out in Clause 1. It is "the said sums", and there are no "said sums" anywhere in the Bill.

I sincerely cannot understand the argument that we are dealing with a trivial dotting of the "i's" and a crossing of the t's", and that by stretching some other rule on some other occasion we can somehow or other put it right. We are dealing with a money Bill, the thing that the House of Commons acquired most of its liberties in defending.

Mr. Manuel

We are losing them now.

Mr. Silverman

My point is that on this Clause, as it stands, no one knows what we are doing. The banks will not know what security they will get. Unless it can be altered, and we are told that it cannot be altered here and now, and I think that it cannot be altered anywhere else, there will be no security on which the Government will be able to borrow the money which the Clause intends them to have the power to do.

I do not think that we ought to deal with it in this way. Let me make a confession, and I speak only for myself. I know that the debates that we have had, the Ways and Means Resolution, and the Bill, are the Parliamentary machinery, of which this is a part, designed to give the Government their way about health charges. I confess that in those debates there has from time to time been so much indignation that my hon. Friends and I have seen fit to express that indignation by way of protest by prolonging the debates, sometimes in circumstances when, had the context been different, we would not have done so. I ask the Committee to believe me when I say that this is not such a point.

This is a point which goes to the roots of our constitutional procedure and the rights, powers and duties of the House of Commons. It may arise in what one may call a trivial way. It may arise, as I am sure it did, by inadvertence. I understand that the ship money controversy, which filled some part of the proceedings of the House 300 years ago, was by the same kind of inadvertence. All our constitutional precedents have been established in this way, and the rights, powers and duties of the House of Commons arise very largely out of matters of this kind.

I say to the Government, why must they pretend? The error has been made, they know that. It does not matter two pins how it was made or who made it. It has to be put right. Why in the world not put it right decently and in accordance with our long-established practice, instead of trying to force the thing through because, somehow or other, the merits of it are all right and, therefore, we need not bother about traditional procedure. That is not the way in which the House of Commons should approach its duties in financial matters.

It will, of course, be a nuisance if the Government have to withdraw this and bring it in again, but in the end they will get their way and they will have the satisfaction of doing it in the right way. Why should they be obstinate about it and adopt a procedure whereby it does not matter that they show disdain to some of my hon. Friends, so long as they show their power, with all the arithmetic of the Division Lobbies? What do they gain by that, except a lowering of the prestige of the House of Commons in a world where the prestige of the House should be maintained and not undermined?

Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)

Loud and prolonged cheers.

Mr. Silverman

I was able the other day to intervene in a speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree with him. It is something which occasionally happens when a right hon. and learned Gentleman is as various and unpredictable as this one. I do not know the purpose of his intervention, and I do not know what his neighbours think is amusing in a situation of this kind.

Sir L. Heald

I am entirely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman. I thought he would like some support from this side.

Mr. Silverman

The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. I shall be enormously grateful for the support which, I understand, he is now promising. He does not need to take the time of the Committee in making a speech in support. That will not carry the matter much further, and I flatter myself that I have said what has to be said on this. If he really wants to lend support and we all heard him make his promise, then, when the Division is called, we shall be delighted to see him in the Lobby in defence of the traditions and practices of the House of Commons.

11.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Although I understand there is an agreement about the time that we should end this debate, I hope that it will not be assumed that it is entirely a monopoly of hon. Members opposite. I think I am right in saying that it will be within the recollection of the Committee that during the night of 20th February, at about one o'clock, I suggested that it was not necessary for everybody to get so worried about this Clause because, in fact, the plural included the singular. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that the Act of Interpretation also infers that the singular includes the plural, that is the Act of 1889 which my hon. Friend has already quoted. It says: … after the commencement of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—… (b) words in the singular shall include the plural, and words in the plural shall include the singular. I said the other night that I thought it was probably unnecessary to make any Amendment to this Clause if all our concern was to do what we wanted to do. I accept, of course, that it is necessary that an Amendment should be made if we are to bring the Clause into exact line with all previous Consolidated Fund Bills which have dealt only with one fund. But my own feeling is that that is being meticulously careful and unnecessarily so. Nevertheless, I bow to superior opinion on the matter because Consolidated Fund Bills go back a long way. I do not know whether hon. Members know when they first started. The first Consolidated Fund Bill was started on 10th May, 1787, and it may interest the Commitee if I say what it covered: And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That, from and after the Tenth Day of May one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, the several Duties of Customs. Excise and Stamps, granted or consoidated by this Act, together with the Duty on Hackney Coaches and Chairs, granted by the Acts of the Ninth of Queen Anne, and Eleventh of King George the Third, and on Hackney Coaches, by the Twenty fourth of King George the Third; the duty on Hawkers and Pedlers made perpetual by an Act of the Fifth of King George the First; and the Duty on Hawkers and Pedlers, granted by the Twenty fifth of King George the Third; the Duty on Houses, Windows and Lights, granted by the Sixth of King George the Third—

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

On a point of order, Sir William. May I take it, in view of the speech of the hon. Member, that it will be in order to discuss all the Consolidated Fund Acts passed since the reign of George III?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

The hon. Member may have seen that I was fidgeting and just about to rise. I was looking forward to the moment when the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) would direct his remarks more closely to the Motion before the Committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I am indeed, sorry, Sir William, if I have in any way made you feel that I was getting out of order. I thought I had the consent of the Committee and that hon. Members were showing interest and wanted to know what was in the first Consolidated Fund Measure. But I bow to your Ruling, Sir William, or shall I say to your hint of a possible Ruling, and I will merely say, "etc., etc.—" and that all those were to be put into a Fund to be called the Consolidated Fund. That is the first occasion on which it ever occurs in the history of this country. Up to that time the various taxes which had been raised were dealt with in completely separate funds.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of Order, Sir William. Would it be possible to explain how the hon. Member's very interesting historical disquisition helps us to decide whether to put Clause 2 into this Bill?

The Deputy-Chairman

As the Committee knows, the debate has ranged rather widely, but I think that now it is going too wide. I hope that the hon. Member will come directly to the Motion.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Of course I will, Sir William. The point of my mentioning it at all was simply to show that the Consolidated Fund Bill goes a long way back into our history and that it is probably perfectly right at the appropriate stage to ensure that this Clause is worded in accordance with precedent. Of course, I accept that and for that reason—although I still consider any amendment entirely unnecessary in order to convey what we want to convey, and I profoundly disagree with hon. Members opposite—I see that perhaps we ought to amend it because of the long precedent in this matter. It is perfectly obvious that all the points raised by hon. Members fail because the actual sum is mentioned, the total is mentioned.

Mr. Manuel

The actual sums are not mentioned.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

According to the interpretation, the word "sums" includes the singular. The singular sum is mentioned in the Bill itself—the sum of £42,877,600. The point of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) fails completely because there is not the slightest danger of the Treasury issuing more than is covered by that sum.

Mr. Silverman

I do not think the hon. Member has understood the point. It is true that Clause 1 contains the word "sum" and refers to the precise sum which is mentioned. In Clause 2, the word "sums" is mentioned, which may or may not include the precise sum in Clause 1, but obviously includes also something else unknown.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I know the hon. Member is reading it like that, but it mentions "the said sums". The words "the said" refer back to Clause 1. Therefore, the hon. Member is on an entirely false point, and I am surprised that with all his legal experience he should be.

Mr. Silverman

rose—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I cannot give way again.

Mr. Silverman

I know the hon. Gentleman is afraid to give way. He is afraid to meet the point.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

The hon. Member knows that I have given way to him many times.

Mr. Silverman

No, the hon. Gentleman gave way once only and now he has misunderstood my point.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

In any case, I understand that it is out of order to speak in a sitting position in this place. The hon. Member knows me well enough to be aware that I have always given way, but I understand that there is an agreement about time, and I hope we shall honour that agreement, but I thought that somebody on this side of the Committee should say something because the Clause has been attacked viciously by hon. Members opposite on false grounds and I hope that I have shown what those false grounds are.

Mr. M. Foot

The hon. Member has referred to an agreement about time. Can you give us any guidance about that, Sir William?

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

If there has been any agreement, surely the hon. Gentleman's remark was a reflection on the Chair. Such an important matter must involve the Chair. Has there been consultation with the Chair?

Mr. Swingler

Has there been any suggestion about the moving of the Closure? I know that we cannot ask you for any assurance on the point, Sir William, but there seems to be some suggestion that at some point the debate is going to be gagged. Can we have an assurance on that point?

The Deputy-Chairman

I know of no agreement about time. Agreement takes place not with the Chair but through the usual channels, as I understand it.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is it not the case that this Consolidated Fund Bill, like all other Consolidated Fund Bills, is exempt from the Standing Order relating to the closure of our proceedings? Surely nobody has any power whatever to agree to curtail the rights of hon. Members where the Standing Order provides that discussion may continue.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would be good enough to enlarge a little on an explanation which he gave but which I did not find altogether easy to understand with regard to lines 10 and 11 of Clause 2 (4). On a previous occasion when we were debating this Bill in Committee the hon. Gentleman let us into one or two Treasury secrets. He told us that the Consolidated Fund is, so to speak, only a notional fund, that it has no real existence. I believe he said there is nothing that one can touch or hold in one's hand. In fact, it is an imaginary fund, with no money in it and out of which this enormous sum has to be applied for purposes for which the Bill is designed. I take it that there is only one Consolidated Fund?

Sir E. Boyle

indicated assent.

Mr. Driberg

Thank you very much. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury indicated assent. There is only one Consolidated Fund. That is the notionally enormous fund on which we sometimes have general debates much wider than this limited debate in which one can raise any matter of administration or grievance. Clause 2 (4) says: Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund". That is, the only, non-existent Consolidated Fund— …and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. That seems very difficult to understand, or else to be completely nonsensical, and I can hardly believe that even this Government would bring before us a Measure which contained a nonsense of that kind. If one considers those last words in their strict literal meaning, as I suppose one must, they indicate that Any money borrowed under this section shall be available in any manner in which such Fund is available that is to say, presumably, for any of the purposes of the Consolidated Fund itself, the whole Fund, and not only for the purposes arising out of the Pilkington award. I wonder if the Financial Secretary would clear that up?

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), I am very much concerned about subsection (4). Listening to this debate has been an education.

I have sat right through this debate and the former one, and I have had some initiation into the mysteries of high finance. Having heard most of the comments of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, I still find it difficult to understand a procedure whereby a fund which does not exist chooses how money which has already been paid out shall be paid out. As I mentioned in the House some time ago, most doctors in my area received this money on 1st February. I suppose that explains how Clause I pays the money out and Clause 2 gets the money in.

The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is one of great concern. As I understand the position, the Exchequer is the handmaiden of the Minister of Health. It is the medium through which he can have the money disbursed where it is intended it shall be disbursed. I might be mistaken, for perhaps the Minister of Health is the handmaiden of the Financial Secretary or of the Exchequer.

We have no guarantee that although we have passed the Motion "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill," there is a clear indication that the doctors will receive this money and that it is safeguarded by subsection (4) of this Clause and that this money will be reimbursed in that way. I shall be interested to hear the Financial Secretary explain that.

Sir E. Boyle

I shall endeavour to answer some of the points raised during the last three-quarters of an hour.

First, I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was possibly making an error in thinking that there was some slight on Scotland by the fact that Scotland was not referred to in Clause 2 (1). Exactly the opposite is true, because, as I endeavoured to explain before, there is no statutory restriction on borrowing from Scottish banks as there is in the case of borrowing from the Bank of England. The Treasury can borrow from those banks and they in fact hold various Government securities. So I think that hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies should feel pleased and honoured rather than sorry that Scotland is not specifically referred to in sub-section (1).

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) asked about the reference to Treasury Bills Act, 1877, in subsection (2). I am afraid that at that point I was doing what the hon. Member for Nelson and Caine (Mr. S. Silverman) was censuring just now—doing my home work during the lesson. I endeavoured to find out what I could on the subject, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is this. The 1877 Treasury Bills Act provides, as I understand it, for the refinancing of Treasury Bills beyond one financial year. The Consolidated Fund Bill which we are considering this evening provides for borrowing powers temporarily, that is to say, strictly within the financial year 1960–61.

11.30 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman also asked how this money got into the Consolidated Fund in order to pay the interest referred to in subsection (3). The answer is that it comes directly from the proceeds of general taxation.

Finally, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said that he still could not quite follow what I said about Clause 2 (4), and therefore I will try to explain the point again. The Exchequer account, as I said, is in fact a banking account into which all receipts of Government are paid and one single Consolidated Fund is thereby constituted. With respect, I did not say the other night that the Consolidated Fund did not exist or that it had no money in it. I said: …the Consolidated fund is a fund out of which Supply is granted to Her Majesty. And later I went on to say, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, that the Consolidated Fund is not one one can actually point to or hold in one's hand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 211–2.] I am not a great expert in philosophy, although I am extremely interested in the subject. Something exists here.

Mr. Driberg

Does it exist only in a Berkeleyan sense?

Sir E. Boyle

Not only in a Berkeleyan sense but also, one might say, to be more up to date, in a Stuart Hampshire sense. It is something one can identify and distinguish from something else. Quite clearly, the Consolidated Fund is one fund and the Civil Contingencies Fund is another. There is a distinction between the two. A great deal more money can be shared out of the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Driberg

There is actual cash in it, cash, chinking lolly?

Sir E. Boyle

All receipts of Government are put into one Consolidated Fund unless Parliament directs otherwise.

I think those are the points which hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Driberg

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my last point, that it is to be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.

Sir E. Boyle

I am sorry. All Government payments are made from the Consolidated Fund in the first instance. The point of those last words, as I tried to reply earlier, is that it is essential for the economic management of the Exchequer that all receipts, including those arising from anything under the authority of this Bill, shall be available to meet any payments as they may occur from day to day. That is the whole purpose of these words and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. These words enshrine the fact that we do not have an hypothecated system.

There is one other point. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) asked quite fairly the other night what was to prevent money voted under the Bill being used when it comes to doing the borrowing for purposes other than the National Health Service. The strict answer is that it is quite true that there is nothing to prevent that, but the Government can meet out of Votes only expenditure on a Supply Resolution agreed to by the House. It is really in Committee of Supply and not by means of passing the Consolidated Fund Bill that the control of expenditure strictly arises.

I hope that having given those answers the Committee will now feel able to part with the Clause.

Mr. Swingler

Will the Financial Secretary elucidate that point? We have had much argument about this. Does it mean that the money to which we are giving legislative sanction tonight could be used, for example, for the Government's nuclear weapons policy? Could it he used for old-age pensions? Could it be used for sewerage schemes? It is not in any way, according to the sanction, attached to doctors' and dentists' pay.

Sir E. Boyle

I repeat what I said, because this is important. The Government can meet out of Votes only expenditure founded on Supply Resolutions agreed to by the House of Commons. It may be perfectly true that on a number of occasions Supply Resolutions get through Parliament very quickly without hon. Members always realising fully what has happened, but we have a perfectly full and adequate theoretical control of expenditure through the operations of the Committee of Supply.

Mr. S. Silverman

The Financial Secretary told the Committee that he had answered the points put to him. I may have fallen asleep for a minute or two, but I do not think I did. I missed any reference to his speech to what I think was the substantial point—whether it is a sound one is another matter—which I made to him about the effect of using the plural word "sums in subsection (1), referring to a security for a large sum of money to be borrowed, instead of the intended word "sum." Does the hon. Gentleman say that this makes no difference and has no effect? I put a point to him. I should like an answer to it.

Sir E. Boyle

I did not comment on the hon. Member's speech because, in so far as I had a comment, I think had by implication made it already in some points of order I raised earlier in the evening. I do not want to arouse the controversy again, but there may be other opportunities to consider this point.

Here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I do not altogether share his admiration for King George III, but on this point I agree with him. The fact that there is a reference to "the said sums" makes clear what Clause 2 is getting it. We will have a chance of debating the word later in the evening, but I do not believe that subsection (1) as drafted could be dangerously misleading from the point of view of those who have to operate the Clause.

Mr. Wigg

Will the Financial Secretary help me? I do not quite understand what the words "or otherwise" mean. Could the Government, for example, pledge their credit? If they did, it would not be a very great asset on which to raise money. If it does not mean that, will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee what is offered by way of security if the money is to be borrowed?

Sir E. Boyle

The words are: The Treasury may borrow from any person by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise…. I tried to explain earlier that one possibility is the extension and enlargement of the National Debt.

Mr. Driberg

I know that the Financial Secretary was trying to be helpful, and I am grateful to him, but I am still a little puzzled by the concluding words of subsection (4). Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that these words did mean what they seem to mean in the plain sense of the English words printed in the Bill. Right at the end of his speech he seemed to reverse that trend and imply that after all they did not moan what they seemed to mean, since the money borrowed under the Clause and with which the Bill is concerned can be used only for the purposes of the Pilkington award. If that is so, I cannot understand why these words are in, because they are meaningless in this context if that is so. It says: and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. That is not true according to the explanation which the Financial Secretary gave us at the end of his speech. On the other hand, if the words do mean what they say, as I thought the hon. Gentleman was beginning to indicate a little earlier in his speech, I put it to you, Sir William, almost as a point of order, that we should be able to debate this much more widely than we have done.

Mr. S. Silverman

I am only anxious to understand exactly what the Financial Secretary is saying. He said that the answer to my point was, as indicated by his hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), that since the Clause refers to the "said sums" and since the only sum or sums to which the word "said" could apply is the word "sum" in Clause 1. therefore the two things mean the same.

Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying? Is that want we are to understand? Is he saying, in effect, that it does not matter whether, on Third Reading, the proposed Amendment is made or not and that if the Amendment which he proposes to move on Third Reading is either disallowed, ruled out of order or rejected, so that "sums" remains in the Clause where it now appears, this would make no difference to the Bill? If that is so, the hon. Gentleman's Amendment becomes unnecessary. If, on the other hand, the Amendment is necessary, it can only be because it makes some difference.

What I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain is, first, whether he is saying that it makes no difference. If, on the other hand, he is not saying that it makes no difference but that it makes some difference, will he explain exactly what difference it makes? This is what we have to decide. It will be most important when we come to consider whether the proposed drafting Amendment is one of substance or merely drafting. That will depend on whether it means anything.

I want the Financial Secretary to be frank with us now, at this stage. Is he saying that it does not matter in the least whether we say "sums" in Clause 2 and "sum" in Clause 1 or whether we make the correction that he has it in mind to attempt to make at a later stage? Does it make a difference or not? If it makes a difference, what difference is it?

Sir E. Boyle

I am sorry if I confused the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) by any words at the end of my remarks. The point simply is that in the Bill we are authorising the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and authorising the Treasury to borrow up to a certain limit, money which shall be available in any manner in which such Fund is available"— that is to say, money which is part of the Consolidated Fund and is not something loose on its own.

As I have tried to explain, it is essential for the month-by-month economic management of the Exchequer that all receipts into the Exchequer shall be available to meet any payments as they may accrue from day to day. In other words, the money with which we are concerned in this Bill is a part of the Consolidated Fund and can be used in exactly the same way as all money in the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Swingler

We understand that the money has already been paid out to the doctors and the dentists. It is as if the Treasury has already borrowed the money without sanction and is getting the sanction afterwards. Presumably, we have passed previous Bills to sanction a certain amount of money to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund some of which has now found its way into the pockets of the doctors and the dentists. We are now sanctioning the borrowing of money which, presumably, will be used for other purposes, in which case this money may go for widely different purposes—perhaps for pensions, for roads, for defence, and so on. Is this true?

Sir E. Boyle

As I admitted in my speech, this is well known in the Committee. We do not have money hypothecated for particular purposes, as the hon. Member is well aware. The control of expenditure on those things on which the Government are able to spend money and have cover to spend money is exercised, not by these Bills, but by means of the activities of the House in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Wigg

The Financial Secretary says that there is no hypothecated revenue. Is there any hypothecated expenditure? Although there is no money in the bank, for example, could the Government or the Minister of Health carry on "on tick" even if there is nothing at all in the, "kitty," hoping against hope that in due course the Government would be able to raise the money by borrowing?

Mr. S. Silverman

Clause 2 gives the Financial Secretary power to borrow.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I know that. The point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) that he wants to establish whether in actual fact this money is specifically earmarked for the payment of doctors and dentists, or is it that the money?—[Interruption.] I am addressing to the Financial Secretary an argument which is intelligent, and, therefore. I dare say that it is not appreciated by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to know whether the money can be paid out of the clouds, whether it can be paid long in advance of revenue against the hope that the money will ultimately come in in some form.

Sir E. Boyle

I think I can best explain the point to the hon. Gentleman in this way. Taxation is not hypothecated but expenditure is appropriated. We appropriate expenditure not by means of a Consolidated Fund Bill but by means of the Appropriation Bill which we pass at the end of the Session when all the Supply Days have been completed.

Mr. Wigg

If the Financial Secretary would go on he would certainly help me and help the Committee. Would he give us a dissertation for a few minutes on the difference between hypothecation and appropriation?

Sir E. Boyle

I do not think, Sir William, that you would encourage me to give an impromptu dissertation on that subject on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman, without any discourtesy—it is quite clearly understood—that the difference lies between not hypothecating a tax for particular purposes and appropriating expenditure by means of an annual Act which we invariably pass after the Supply Days are completed at the end of each Session.

Turning to what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I was interested in the form in which he put his question, and I quite accept his point. I would put it this way: in his speech he drew attention to what I felt to be possibly slightly exaggerated consequences of the Clause in its existing form. But in answer to his direct question, let me say that I have not the slightest doubt that an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill is desirable. It is obvious that legislation, to put it at its lowest, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne well knows—

Mr. Silverman

rose—

Sir E. Boyle

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence. I respect his enthusiasm as a debater, but I sometimes think that he is better at talking than listening.

I would only say that it is our job in this Committee to ensure that legislation is passed in as correctly drafted a form as possible. Hon. Members opposite quite properly raised a point the other night, and I have no doubt—absolutely none—that an Amendment ought to be moved at a later stage of the Bill; but I would rather not go beyond that in replying to the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Silverman

I am sorry to be troublesome about it, but the hon. Gentleman said that he would answer my direct question. I listened very carefully to hear whether he was going to answer it, but he has not answered it. I had previously understood that he thought it was desirable to make an Amendment. What I am asking is whether it is necessary to make the Amendment. In other words, the direct question was: does it make any difference to the Bill at all whether he makes the Amendment or not? If the answer is no, I know where I am. If the answer is yes, I should like the Financial Secretary to say exactly what difference will be made by it. I think the hon. Gentleman ought to come clean with the Committee and tell us what the answer is to a perfectly simple and quite direct question. Let us have an equally simple and equally direct answer.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

Despite the persistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who goes on with his point quite properly, I want to return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), because I do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne should monopolise almost the whole of the evening with his question.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has raised a point which I am afraid the Financial Secretary has not answered. I want to put it to the Financial Secretary in a different form. Clause 2 (4) states: and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available. I submit that those words are tautolo-gous. The Financial Secretary has explained to us at very great length that they are quite meaningless, and the more one reads subsection (4) the more one is convinced that he is right. What does it say? Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer… Splendid! and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund… Why not a full stop there? What else is necessary to be said? There should be a full stop after "Fund". I recommend that the comma be deleted and a period inserted.

For what purpose do we now have the words following that passage? The Financial Secretary has made it clear that they are meaningless, that taxation is not hypothecated. He has also made clear the arrangement on Supply by which this money is voted and is spent on an appropriation to be allocated.

Are we not repeating a Treasury cliché? It seems that in all these Consolidated Fund Bills and special Bills of this kind, this phrase appears because it has appeared almost since the days of George III, mentioned by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). In the interests of simplification and of the saving of the time of compositors and of paper, could it not in future be so arranged that words that have no meaning are not included in bills? Would it not be a good thing in this case if these words were deleted, so that the purpose of the Bill would be clearer to everybody?

Mr. Pavitt

If the Financial Secretary wanted to follow through the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) would it be in order for him to move such an amendment on Third Reading?

The Chairman

What would be in order on Third Reading is a question for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Swingler

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) is correct. On 20th February, Sir Gordon, you told us: The purpose of the Bill is to give authority to the Lords of the Treasury to make payments which the House has already approved. This grant of £42,877,600 was approved in Committee of Supply on 5th December and the Resolution was agreed to by the House on 20th December. Therefore, the Clause authorising this sum cannot be amended and 'according to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 166.]

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about Clause 1. We are now on Clause 2.

Mr. Swingler

I am coming to the relevance to Clause 2, Sir Gordon. We have discovered that the Committee stage of such a Bill is not always formal and sometimes is debated. Before you reoccupied the Chair, the Financial Secretary informed us that this money for which he requires powers of borrowing is not, in fact, earmarked for the purpose for which it was alleged to be earmarked—for doctors and dentists pay—that it is the practice of the Treasury to acquire authority to raise sums by Resolution, and that these sums are reconciled in the accountancy of the Treasury over the years.

The hon. Gentleman was frank, and made it clear that this sum for which he requires borrowing powers cannot be acquired for doctors and dentists pay, because that money has already been paid to them. It is no use pretending that they are waiting for the sanction of this Clause; the doctors and dentists are already spending the money.

The Treasury must have got that money from somewhere else. Therefore, the Treasury is now in deficit and requires borrowing powers to raise this money. Yet the £42 million we are discussing, and for which we are giving borrowing sanction, will probably be spent upon something else. It might be spent on highways, or on pensions, or on the H-Bomb.

It will all be reconciled in the accounts, as the Financial Secretary has explained. It cannot strictly be said that the purpose of the Bill is to give him legislative authority for the pay of doctors and dentists, otherwise my hon. Friend would be correct. This phraseology would not be required because, as you ruled earlier, Sir Gordon, it would be for only one purpose. With such authority, the words "be available in any manner" would not be necessary.

This phraseology has been put in because the Treasury intends to borrow this money for some purpose other than the purpose of doctors' and dentists' remuneration. That is correct, is it not? Therefore, one is entitled to comment that the money will be used for a variety of these other purposes.

If I am wrong and my hon. Friend is right, I suggest that we cut out this archaic language. What is uncovered here by the use of this vague phrase is that the Financial Secretary wants carte blanche to enable the Treasury to spend the money as it pleases.

Mr. Wigg

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was a little unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He treated him a little roughly. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne made the most important point that has been made.

The Financial Secretary was not quite clear whether the Amendment ought to be made. My hon. Friend then amended his question and asked whether it was necessary. If a drafting mistake has been made—and the Government always make drafting mistakes and get away with them—that is what the legal profession depends on. We want to know whether it is essential to change the procedure of the House to make the Amendment.

It may be that the Financial Secretary has not acquainted himself with this point I wonder, Sir Gordon, whether you would consider adjourning the Committee to enable the hon. Gentleman to consult his legal advisers, or to send for the Law Officers of the Crown to give the Committee an answer on this point? I think that the Committee ought to have the advice of the Attorney-General. We ought to send for him. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman consider sending for one of the Law Officers, preferably the Attorney-General, to advise the Committee whether it will be absolutely essential to make this Amendment?

Mr. Diamond

The position is clear. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said the other day: There is a mistake in Clause 2 of the Bill." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1961, Vol. 635, c. 314.] The Government Front Bench cannot at the moment decide whether there is a mistake. The Financial Secretary cannot make up his mind whether to support his hon. Friend who says that it does not matter. He is trying to say both things. I take what the Leader of the House said, that there is a mistake in Clause 2, and we are being invited to pass a Clause in which there is a mistake.

This is a fantastic and stupid mistake. It is making us all look a lot of silly asses. I have appealed to you, Sir Gordon, to use your power in the Chair to get us out of this difficulty, and you have given your Ruling on that. We have appealed to the Government, and the Government propose to pursue this, notwithstanding that they are inviting us to pass a Clause which, on the authority of the Leader of the House, has a mistake in it, and nobody can say, including Mr. Speaker who was quite specific on this, that this mistake can be put right at a later stage of the Bill.

12 m.

The Government have an alternative before them of not pursuing with the Bill and bring in another Bill. They do not propose to do that. There is no reason why we should pass this Clause there is good reason why we should not do so. The money was needed for the doctors, and was given authority under the Ways and Means Resolution. The Government have the legislative authority for that Resolution. They got it on Clause 1, which authorises the issue out of the Consolidated Fund. All this Clause would do would be to vote money into the Consolidated Fund, which could be used either to replace money spent on the doctors or for any other purpose.

The simple point is that the money voted for the doctors has been approved and has been paid. Nothing further is needed to enable the doctors to have been properly and authoritatively paid. There being, therefore, no reason for the passage of this Clause, but the best of reasons against it, I am proposing to vote against it and I invite my hon. Friends to join me.

Sir L. Plummer

On a point of order. I have been advised by the Leader of the House that there is a mistake in the Bill. If I, knowing there is this mistake, vote for it, have I got Parliamentary privilege which protects me from any action taken against me for malfeasance by my constituents? Am I putting myself in peril in knowingly voting or refraining from voting?

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman does not put himself in peril by voting on any Motion in this House.

Mr. Wigg

I had not finished my speech. I resumed my seat because I thought the Financial Secretary was going to tell us whether he was going to send for the Law Officers of the Crown. It is essential that we should know whether a mistake in this Bill is of such a character that it is desirable to amend it in the interests of good government or whether it is absolutely essential. If it is essential, it is a grave breach of this institution to ask us to pass this Clause. Once we pass it we lose control, and all we have is the Government's undertaking that they are going to do what they said they would do. On their record, such an undertaking is almost a guarantee that they will do the opposite. Could we, therefore, have advice on this narrow point? Could we have the benefit of the Law Officers' opinion upon whether it is desirable or essential that this amendment should be made?

Mr. Driberg

I would like to pursue the point. It is unlikely that we shall have finished our scrutiny of this Clause before business starts tomorrow, and who knows what may happen overnight to the Financial Secretary, who has given us this undertaking? I hope that no accident will happen to him. But he may feel obliged to resign from the Government, as he has very creditably done on one previous occasion. The Prime Minister may decide to send him to another place. Anything might happen, and the undertaking he has given might not be binding on his successor. We are in a very great difficulty about voting for this Clause, or refraining from voting knowing that it contains an inaccuracy.

I am still very concerned about the last twelve words in the Clause. I think it has become increasingly clear. I think I am beginning dimly to apprehend, from the Financial Secretary's very cogent and repeated explanations, what they mean, or are intended to mean. But the more clearly I begin to apprehend what they mean, the more clearly it is borne in on me that, as my hon. Friend said, they are really tautologous, redundant, supererogatory, and otiose. And if that be so, I think it is perhaps rather much to ask the Financial Secretary to delete them "off the cuff," so to speak, tonight. It is clear that the Clause means exactly the same, or something quite accurate without them.

So would the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to look into the precedents to see whether, as my hon. Friend suggested, these words are a Treasury cliche constructed over centuries of Consolidated Fund Bills and inapplicable to the present day? If that is so, will he consider the drastic reform of omitting these words the next time a Consolidated Fund Bill comes before this Committee?

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Is it possible to get advice from the Government about whether they are going to send for the Attorney-General?

The Chairman

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Swingler

Further to that point of order. You have refused to give us any guidance on this point, Sir Gordon. We have asked the Chair to give us guidance because when we are trying to come to a decision on this Clause we have to make up our minds what is likely to be the future progress of this Bill, and whether we are going to commit an error that cannot be remedied at some later stage, which of course, might happen. In your wisdom you refuse to give us any indication whether this is—

The Chairman

Order. I cannot say what will happen on Third Reading.

Mr. Swingler

Surely somebody must know. Is it possible for us to find out whether in fact the mistake in this Clause can be remedied on Third Reading, or must we assume there is uncertainty about this? In which case hon. Members can imagine that it is unlikely that this can be remedied and that therefore we should take some action now in order to remedy this inaccuracy. I suggest that by not giving a Ruling on the matter you are indicating to the Committee that our action should be to try to remedy this mistake now, because we cannot be at all sure that we shall have any opportunity to do so in the future.

The Chairman

The opportunity the hon. Member has is to vote against this Clause. I cannot tell what will happen on Third Reading. It is not a matter for this Committee.

Mr. Wigg

Further to that point of order. I put a point of order in a respectful way and during the fifteen years I have been in the House I have invariably received a courteous reply from the Chair. It may be that I did not frame my question as I might have wished to do, but I do not think I invited the curt reply which I received. In fact, I am putting a point of great importance to every hon. Member. We are asking what this means and it is clear that the hon. Gentleman cannot reply—

The Chairman

Order. It is not a point of order for me as to which Minister speaks for the Government.

Mr. Wigg

May I be allowed to put my point—

Mr. Diamond

I do not see why; I was not allowed to put mine.

Mr. Wigg

The point I wish to put is this. I asked on a point of order whether we could be given advice whether the Law Officers could be informed—

The Chairman

Order. I have answered that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Wigg

With respect. On a point of order I asked whether we could get an answer from the Government Front Bench—

The Chairman

It is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, I am aware that it is not a point of order for you in that sense. But using a point of order, I should have thought in a proper way—

The Chairman

It is not a point of order for me in any sense.

Mr. Swingler

On a point of order, Sir Gordon. Would it be in order for me to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in order that we could afford time to the Government to make further inquiries into the matter?

The Chairman

I would not accept that Motion at this stage.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, Sir Gordon, if you refuse to accept the Motion we can at least debate the matter. We have a right to submit the reasons why we seek to move to report Progress.

The Chairman

The hon. Member has not got that right.

Mr. M. Foot

I should be interested to hear the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends on the need for the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, as this is a matter on which I always need to be convinced. However, I do not think it would help the Committee if we had the Attorney-General here tonight. It would merely lengthen the proceedings, although I do not wish to anticipate any argument that my hon. Friends may wish to make on that point.

What I wish to ask the Financial Secretary is this. I do not think he has answered it yet. One of the most impressive arguments from this side of the Committee on the Clause is that which was adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—and I do not think the Financial Secretary has attempted to deal with this point—namely, if this Clause were left out of the Bill the Government would still get the substance of what they want. They still have the money by Clause 1. The doctors would get the money, which is the main purpose of the Bill. Indeed, they have got it already. If the Bill went through without Clause 2, then the Measure would still have some value and we would have overcome the difficulty. We would not have passed a Clause with all these invidious and unresolved difficulties.

Therefore, I think we should have a full explanation from the Financial Secretary as to why it is so essential to have this Clause, despite all the difficulties which have been revealed in it. It may be said that some extra money may be needed for a period, but, as was explained earlier by the Financial Secretary, the whole of this Bill might have been unnecessary, because the money for providing for the purposes of the Bill—although they have not been carefully or precisely revealed—might have been raised not by means of a special Consolidated Fund but from the Civil Contingencies Fund. As I understand it, from what the Financial Secretary told us the other night, the only reason that the Government could not deal with the matter, or thought that they could not deal with the matter under the Civil Contingencies Fund—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is dealing with Clause I now.

Mr. Foot

I was hoping that I was dealing with the question as to whether it was necessary to have Clause 2 in addition to Clause 1. I may have got it wrong, and that is why I ask for explanations, but I thought that the only purpose of Clause 2 was that it was an additional safeguard for the Treasury, added to the main purpose which was achieved by Clause 1, and that it was an additional advantage if, in certain circumstances, it was required to borrow money. If, indeed, it was required to borrow extra money, that amount could be dealt with, as I understand it, under the Civil Contingencies Fund.

The Financial Secretary was trying to explain the other night that it is conceivable that the whole of this matter might have been dealt with by the Civil Contingencies Fund—that is, if the amount that has already been voted by the House under Clause 1 for the doctors had been a smaller amount it could have been dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund. That is correct, is it not? It is purely a matter of degree. Therefore, as the only advantage of Clause 2 is that it gives the Treasury the possibility of covering itself further, I should have thought that this could be dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund. If it could be dealt with under the Civil Contingencies Fund it would be better for the constitutional practice of this House that we should do it that way rather than pass a Bill which has these defects in it.

12.15 a.m.

I hope I am not misrepresenting what the Financial Secretary said in the previous discussion: I do not think that it will surprise any of the ex-F.S.Ts. There are not many of them here to give us reassurance— —if I may so put it—who may be present, to know that that Fund would almost certainly be unable to bear that extra strain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 195.] The hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we might not have had this Bill if the doctors' award had been slightly smaller. I hope he will explain what would be the exact consequence, because this is what we shall vote about, if the House knocked out Clause 2 altogether. What would be the position of the Government? Would they be in any difficulty? Would it give rise to any awkward arrangements in connection with the moneys they have already paid out to the doctors? Would it put the Government to any inconvenience other than that they would look rather foolish having argued for this Clause for so long, if they said it did not matter all that much?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain what would be the consequences if we voted against Clause 2 because, unless he can show that there would be grave disadvantages, the arguments deduced on this side of the Committee are reasons why I think the whole Committee would wish not to pass this Clause and run all the constitutional risks my hon. Friends have described which we would be involved in if we adopted the advice of the Leader of the House, which apparently was on the very slender constitutional grounds of altering a Bill on Third Reading and putting into it on Third Reading a substantial amendment. If we can avoid those difficulties, it will be a great advantage to us all. I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer the points which have been pressed on him.

Mr. Wigg

On a point of order, Sir Gordon, would you now accept a Motion, That the Chairman do now leave the Chair, as an alternative to the Motion I endeavoured to move earlier?

The Chairman

No, I shall not accept that Motion.

Mr. Wigg

With respect, before you rule on it, could I submit reasons why I move it?

The Chairman

No, I have decided not to accept the Motion.

Sir E. Boyle

I wish to answer two points made in the last half hour of debate.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) asked whether Clause 2 was essential to the Bill. I cannot say—it would be dishonest of me to pretend to say—whether from the point of view of Treasury borrowing operations this Clause entitling the Treasury to borrow by one means or another £42 million or £43 million is essential at the moment. Any hon. Member is entitled if he wishes to vote against the Clause, but I think we should have to go back possibly to the reign of King George III—anyway a long way back—to find a Consolidated Fund Bill which did not include this type of Clause. It would be an extremely dangerous precedent and one which the House would have every reason to regret if it did not contain a Clause limiting the rights of the Treasury to borrow in a case of this kind.

Mr. Diamond

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us from his great historical knowledge how far back we would have to go to find a Consolidated Fund Bill in which the Government were advising the whole Committee to vote for a Clause in which there was an error?

Sir E. Boyle

I shall come to that in a moment; I shall not evade the point.

I was going to add that I think the case for including a Clause on the lines of Clause 2, a Clause setting out the powers of the Treasury to borrow, is all the more essential under present day conditions when the total of Government expenditure is so much greater both in absolute terms and as a share of the national income than it was years ago. I cannot do more than give the Committee that advice.

I come now to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) and other hon. Members about exactly how essential it is that an Amendment should be moved at a later stage of the Bill. If I appeared to evade the question of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and again it was not deliberate, it was because it is one of those questions concerning which one has to pick one's words very carefully before giving a precise answer.

I have endeavoured to answer, I hope, with as much proficiency as a Law Officer could have done in the last half hour, and the best answer is this. While I believe it likely that Clause 2 in its present form is clear and would be held to be clear, none the less I have no doubt that it is desirable that the Clause should pass the House in a form which the whole Committee recognises to be the right one, and it is for that reason that I shall move an Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee Division:—

The Tellers being come to the Table, it was stated by Colonel J. H. HARRISON, one of the Tellers, that the Tellers were not agreed as to the number who voted with the Ayes.

Whereupon The CHAIRMAN directed the Committee to proceed again to a Division:—

Ayes 128, Noes 16.

Division No. 63.]	AYES	[12.30 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Fisher, Nigel	Heave, Alrey
Aitken, W. T.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Gammons, Lady	Noble, Michael
Atlason, James	Gibson-Watt, David	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Atkins, Humphrey	Glover, Sir Douglas	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barter, John	Goodhart, Philip	Peel, John
Botsford, Brian	Goodhew, Victor	Percival, Ian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Green, Alan	Pott, Percivall
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Grimston, Sir Robert	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Bidgood, John C.	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Prior, J. M. L.
Biggs-Davison, John	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bishop, F. P.	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Black, Sir Cyril	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Rees, Hugh
Bossom, Clive	Hirst. Geoffrey	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Bourne-Arton, A.	Hocking, Philip N.	Roots, William
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Holland, Philip N.	Scott-Hopkins, James
Box, Donald	Hopkins, Alan	Seymour, Leslie
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hornby, R. P.	Sharples, Richard
Brewis, John	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia	Shaw, M.
Bullard, Denys	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)	Shepherd, William
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)	Hughes-Young, Michael	Skeet, T. H. H.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)	Smithers, Peter
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Jackson, John	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Chanson, H. P. G.	Jennings, J. C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Chataway, Christopher	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Studholme, Sir Henry
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Talbot, John E.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Kershaw, Anthony	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Cleaver, Leonard	Kirk, Peter	Tooling, William
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Leavey, J. A.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Coulson, J. M.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Critchley, Julian	Lilley, F. J. P.	Vane, W. M. F.
Curran, Charles	Litchfield, Capt. John	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Low, Fit. Hon. Sir Toby	Watts, James
		Low, Fit. Hon. Sir Toby
Dance, James	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	W Wells, John (Maidstone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	MacArthur, Ian	Whiteiaw, William
Deedes, W. F.	McLaren, Martin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Maddan, Martin	Wise, A. R.
du Cann, Edward	Maginnis, John E.	Woodhouse, C. M.
Duncan, Sir James	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Woodnutt, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Mawby, Ray	Warsley, Marcus
Elliott,R.W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Errington, Sir Eric	Mills, Stratton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Farr, John	Montgomery, Fergus	Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Finlay, Graeme	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

NOES
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Diamond, John	Manuel, A. C.	Swingler, Stephen
Driberg, Tom	Mendelson, J. J.	Whitlock, William
Fletcher, Eric	Milian, Bruce	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Greenwood, Anthony	Pavitt, Laurence	Mr. Wigg and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 127. Noes 15.

Division No. 64.]	AYES	[12.38 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Butter,Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)	Errington, Sir Eric
Aitken, W. T.	Cart, Compton (Barons Court)	Farr, John
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Finlay, Graeme
Allason, James	Chataway, Christopher	Fisher, Nigel
Atkins, Humphrey	Chichester-Clark, R.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barter, John	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Gammons, Lady
Botsford, Brian	Cleaver, Leonard	Gibson-Watt, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Glover, Sir Douglas
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Coulson, J. M.	Goodhart, Philip
Bidgood, John C.	Critchley, Julian	Goodhew, Victor
Biggs Davison, John	Curran, Charles	Green, Alan
Bishop, F. P.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Grimston, Sir Robert
Black, Sir Cyril	Dance, James	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Bossom, Clive	d'Avigdor-Goidsmld, Sir Henry	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Bourne-Arton, A.	Deedes, W. F.	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Box, Donald	du Cann, Edward	Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Duncan, Sir dames	Hirst, Geoffrey
Brewis, John	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hocking, Philip N.
Bullard, Denys	Elliott,R. W.(N'wc'stle-upon-Tyrle, Ns)	Holland, Philip
Hopkins, Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Shepherd, William
Hornby, R. P.	Mills, Stratton	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia	Montgomery, Fergus	Smithers, Peter
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hughes-Young, Michael	Heave, Alrey	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Studholme, Sir Henry
Jackson, John	Noble, Michael	Talbot, John E.
Jennings, J. C.	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Teeling, William
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Peel, John	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Kershaw, Anthony	Percival, Ian	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Kirk, Peter	Pott, Percivall	Vane, W. M. F.
Leavey, J. A.	Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Prior, J. M. L.	Watts, James
Miley, F. J. P.	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Litchfield, Capt. John	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby	Rees, Hugh	Wise, A. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Woodhouse, C. M.
MacArthur, Ian	Roots, William	Woodnutt, Mark
McLaren, Martin	Scott-Hopkins, James	Worsley, Marcus
Maddan, Martin	Seymour, Leslie
Maginnis, John E.	Sharples, Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Sharpies, Richard	Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mawby, Ray	Shaw, M.	Mr. Whitelaw
NOES
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson	Swingler, Stephen
Diamond, John	Manuel, A. C.	Whitlock, William
Driberg, Tom	Mendelson, J. J.	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Fletcher, Eric	Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Pavitt, Laurence	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Greenwood, Anthony	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Mr. Wigg and Mr. Sydney Silverman.

12.45 a.m.

cc693-748
1. Clause 3.—(SHORT TITLE.) 20,372 words, 2 divisions