CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (Hansard, 15 February 1962)

§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be more convenient for me to ask you this question now rather than later.
The question concerns the scope of the Bill on Second Reading. The Leader of the House, in announcing the business last week, said that there had been some agreement—to which I certainly am not a party—that the Second Reading should be taken formally and that the House should then proceed with something else. His justification for that was that no harm was really being done, because the scope of the debate was limited and that there could be no general debate as there is on the main Consolidated Fund Bill.
As befits a private Member, I listened to that with modesty and diffidence, but I have since had the opportunity of looking at the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, to relate the £98 million or so with which it is concerned to any particular Vote, any Vote on Account or Supplementary Estimate. There is nothing whatever, on the face of the Bill, to indicate any ground on which debate should be limited. If the Second Reading is taken formally, one takes it that the Leader of the House or another member of the Government will tell us just what this £98 million is for, so that we shall be able to judge what questions or grievances ought to be disposed of before the sum is voted.
The procedure which has been proposed places the House in great difficulty, and I submit that unless and until it is established that this is a limited Bill, raising limited questions with a very narrow range of debate, your Ruling ought to be, with respect, that the debate is as wide as it is on the main Consolidated Fund Bill or another Consolidated Fund Bill not limited to specific purposes raised in Supply.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's submission. The Bill, in the hearing of the House, was ordered to be brought in upon a Ways 1524 and Means Resolution. That Resolution gathered into itself the two Supply Committee Reports which were agreed to by the House on 13th February last. It follows that the content of this debate will be limited to the administration of the grants covered by those two Supply Resolutions. Taxation would be out of order, of course, as would legislation. It is a question of discussing administration in relation to those Supply Resolutions which were gathered into the Ways and Means Resolution on which the Bill was ordered.

§ Mr. Silverman
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your explanation, but there is nothing in the Bill to relate it to any of these matters. Normally, that defect is cured by the Minister who moves the Second Reading of a Bill telling the House what the Bill is for, how it arises, why it is being brought in, and what the money is to be used for. When that has been made clear in this instance, no doubt there will then arise the considerations you have kindly drawn to our attention. They cannot arise at this stage.
There is nothing here to relate the Bill to any particular Resolution or to any other command of the House at any time, and we are asked to supply, therefore, £98 million without any kind of explanation as to why the Government want this money or what they are to do with it.
It is true that, if we delve back into the debates of the past few months we may get a hint here and a trace of something else there.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If what the hon. Gentleman is submitting to me is a matter of a point of order, he cannot make a speech about it. Whether or no an explanation is given is a matter for the Government and not for me. I rule that the content of the debate must be limited as I have ruled already.

§ Mr. Silverman
I hope that the House will not agree to this Motion without any explanation of any kind. It is quite wrong that it should be so. I appreciate the importance of the debate on shipping that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been anxious to have 1525 for a long time, but it is not right that public moneys should be allocated and dealt with in this casual, slipshod fashion.
It may very well be that, if the Government explain what the money is for, what they propose to do with it, and how the demand for it arises, the House will grant the money and proceed with the business that has otherwise been arranged. But I protest earnestly and sincerely against this way of dealing with financial business, on which all the rights of the House of Commons ultimately depend.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)
I should be glad briefly to answer the questions put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). This Bill is necessary to give legislative effect to the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the amount of £96,830,500, needed to cover a certain number of Supplementary Estimates which have already been agreed to by the House on Report from the Committee of Supply.
I will not, if the House will permit me, give the detailed breakdown of the figures, except to say that these Supplementary Estimates, as the House will recall, relate to the National Health Service, England and Wales; the National Health Service, Scotland; agricultural and food grants and subsidies; and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In addition, the Bill also provides the Treasury, in accordance with precedent, with certain short-term borrowing powers.
The Bill, of course, has nothing to do with the main batch of the spring Supplementary Estimates which have yet to be considered by the House. A second Consolidated Fund Bill will be introduced before the end of March, as usual, to cover these and any other outstanding Supply business.
Clause 1 authorises the Treasury to issue from the Consolidated Fund the further Ways and Means necessary to meet the Supply grants which have been voted since the last Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Act last summer. The Clause follows the Ways and Means Resolution as you, Mr. Speaker, have explained.
1526 I think that the short answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that he is, if I may say so—and this has been done before—slightly confusing the procedure in this House in Committee of Supply with the procedure in Committee of Ways and Means. It is because of the Ways and Means procedure that we have the Bill now, and I commend it to the House.