CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (Hansard, 9 February 1966)

§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call the first Member to speak on Third Reading, I want to add to what I said yesterday when the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) raised a point of order.
Hon. Members will recall that on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill yesterday, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the only items covered by the Bill are those for which increases are asked in the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
As a general rule of very long standing it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the Supplementary Estimates, and the sub-heads of the original Estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the Supplementary Estimates. It is quite obvious that it should be improper, as a general rule, to raise on a Supplementary Estimate the whole question of policy involved in the original Estimates; and, as I have stated, the discussion is properly confined to the items of the Supplementary Estimates. I think, however, that I ought to state that items of Supplementary Estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy, but the interpretation whether they do raise questions of policy or not must clearly be left to the Chair. The rule that I have just given to the House is not new, as I have deliberately repeated the words which Mr. Speaker used on 3rd March, 1893. I do so to remind the House that the rule is of long standing. In the debate on the present Bill, discussion is narrowly confined to the sums of money asked for by Ministers and to the reasons for those additional demands.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your Ruling yesterday, and what you have just read out is helpful, but it means that the area of discussion is reduced to a very narrow one. I would have thought that if justice was to be done to the discussion on these Estimates, a little extra 415 guidance might be given on how far hon. Members should go in what might appear to be moving into the sphere of policy. To take prescription charges as an example, would it be in order to discuss how much better the money could have been spent in other directions?

§ Mr. Speaker
The only way in which the hon. Gentleman can learn whether he is transgressing the rule is to attempt to break it, when he will discover that he is called to order. I cannot rule in advance.

§ Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), sought to widen the debate to discuss South-East Asia. On referring to the Supplementary Estimates, I note, under 7(c), that the Minister required extra funds in relation to Laos, and I was wondering, in view of the fact that extra funds were required by the Government for Laos, how a debate on policy concerning Laos and South-East Asia could be excluded by the Chair.

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go back and question the previous day's Ruling. The only question that could have been raised yesterday on Second Reading was an item specifically covered in the Supplementary Estimates. If the hon. Gentleman turns to the Supplementary Estimates, he will find exactly what items are involved in them. It is not possible, therefore, simply because the name of a State occurs in the Supplementary Estimates of Overseas Aid, to make that an opportunity for discussing the whole of South-East Asia or Vietnam, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was seeking to do.

§ Mr. William Yates
Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Supplementary Estimates were submitted to the House a year ago, funds were appropriated by the House to the Minister in relation to South-West Arabia. On the Consolidated Fund Bill I raised the questions of prisons and administration in South-West Arabia. With respect, I should have thought that Members of the House, despite the ancient Ruling which you have mentioned, would want to look into this matter very much more care- 416 fully if, where money is required or used, we are not allowed to discuss the policy for which that money is required.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The House is so allowed. It is important, and I want the House to understand what is at issue.
There are two kinds of Consolidated Fund Bill as far as scope of debate is concerned. I do not carry the hon. Gentleman's previous speeches in my head, but I have just been advised that when he raised the matter that he did it may have been on the March Consolidated Fund Bill, which is a far, far different matter, when the historic rights of back benchers are to raise grievances before they grant Supply are much wider in scope than on this one.
In this case, the grant of Supply is a very limited one. It is confined to the Supplementary Estimates, and the grievances that hon. Members can raise on this particular Consolidated Fund Bill must arise out of the Supplementary Estimates.
This is an important Ruling which I am making. I hope that the House will take note of it.