ISSUE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH 1971 (Hansard, 16 February 1971)

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)
On a point of order. Before we come to Clause 1, may I ask what we do about approving the Preamble, since it contains certain elements to which I take exception? Do we consider the Preamble when we discuss the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill?

§ The Chairman
This is not the Preamble to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. It is just simply the enacting formula of the Bill, and it is not debatable.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
On a different point of order. Am I to take it, Sir Robert, that you have not selected the Amendments standing in my name?

§ The Chairman
Yes. I owe the hon. Gentleman an apology. I should have said as much. I have not selected those two Amendments.

§ Mr. English
Thank you, Sir Robert. Then, am I to take it that the principle involved in them is in order in our discussion of the Question, That Clause I stand part of the Bill? It concerns whether the Treasury "may" or "shall" issue out of the Consolidated Fund.

§ The Chairman
At this stage, I would not care to give an authoritative Ruling on the matter. I prefer to wait and 1774 see how matters develop, and hold my fire, as it were.

§ Mr. English
If I may say so, Sir Robert, your answer is perfectly acceptable.

§ The Chairman
The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Aye".

Hon. Members
Aye.

Hon. Members
Aye!

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is not it clearly within your recollection that you put the Question and the Question was answered by cries of "Aye"? No hon. Member rose to speak on the Question. Therefore the Question ought now to be put.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. I had not actually collected the voices, and it is quite in order for an hon. Member to raise a point of order or continue the debate, provided that time does not block it, until such time as I have really started collecting the voices. By that, I mean that I have to collect the first lot of "Ayes" and "Noes".

§ Mr. Jenkin
Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. You referred to continuing the debate. With respect, the debate never started. You put the Question, the "Ayes" were collected, and nothing happened.

§ The Chairman
I was in the act of putting the Questiton. I think that hon. Members on the Opposition benches had every intention of starting the debate but did not quite realise what was happening. I suppose that I was not quite smart enough. Mr. Hughes.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
With your permission, Sir Robert, I will begin by outlining our position on this Question, and I want first to quote from a letter written by Edward Romilly to Benjamin Disraeli in 1866. The truth is that——

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
Would my hon. Friend give the Committee the reference because there are hon. Members who would no doubt like to get a copy.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)
On a point of order——

§ The Chairman
Question is, That the Clause stand part——

Hon. Members
"No".

§ The Chairman
Order. Either some hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order with me or he wishes to continue the debate. Does the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) wish to continue the debate?

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
On a point of order, Sir Robert. As I understand it, this Bill is not usually debated at this stage and that this is a most extraordinary procedure, and as I further believe that this Bill enables the Government to pay the salaries of hon Members on both sides of the Committee, and while we are not really interested in the other side losing their salaries but are concerned on this side, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Hon. Members
No.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that I cannot accept that Motion at this stage.

§ Mr. English
Further to that point of order. Is it not the case that only nine years ago this Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill was debated for four hours?

§ The Chairman
Order. That is not a point of order, it is a point of fact.

§ Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)
On a point of order. It might be to your convenience, Sir Robert, and save any further loss of time in your putting the Question through misadventure, if you were to indicate that there are a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee who wish to participate in the debate. I hope that you will facilitate the desire of hon. Members.

§ The Chairman
Of course. I am the servant of the Committee and, as long as hon. Members stay in order, they can continue to speak.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
It was due to my innocence that I sat down to let another hon. Gentleman raise a point of order.
1776 In answer to my hon. Friend's request, this is the 1867 Volume of Accounts and Papers, Vol. 39, page 32, manuscript page 195. It says: Mr. Gladstone has seldom missed an opportunity of pointing out its dullness and although such assurance from so high a quarter was scarcely necessary he has been taken at his word. The Legislature, the public and the Press have left the matter pretty much in the hands of the Treasury and yet one of the professed objects of this Act was to supply an independent and trustworthy check over the Treasury itself. This is at a time when the whole office of Auditor and his relationship with the issues from the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund was first being considered.

§ The Chairman
Order. I must begin by keeping the hon. Gentleman on the straight and narrow path. That is something which issues out of the Consolidated Fund and therefore is out of order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
On a point of order.

§ The Chairman
Order. I think that we had better finish with one hon. Gentleman at a time. I understand the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) is raising a point of order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
On a point of order. In your Ruling, Sir Robert, you say that we cannot discuss the issue of moneys from the Consolidated Fund. That is precisely what Clause I deals with. The Claues states: The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1971 the sum of £296,822,000. My hon. Friend is surely making a point relevant to the machinery and procedures for the issue of funds from the Consolidated Fund under this Measure.

§ The Chairman
No. Unfortunately, it is not quite like that, because the audit is the audit of expenditure in detail, and that is not in order in this debate.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
May I continue by reading a very brief comment from Hallam's "Constitutional History"? As early as the reign of Charles II, the House of Commons have been accustomed to 1777 the idea that they have something more to do than simply to grant money without any security or condition of its application.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
Sir Robert, in order to avoid the proceedings of the House being the victim of such ridicule, which is the object, is this not an occasion on which the Chair could justifiably accept the Motion that the Question be now put?

§ The Chairman
No. I could not justifiably do that at this stage.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
I will be as brief as I can, Sir Robert. Behind an apparently unimportant "may" there lies a deep constitutional issue which, throughout most of the 18th and the first three-quarters of the 19th century, many of our predecessors in the House on both sides spent many long hours in determining.
In the period when Walpole was Prime Minister, the First Secretary to the Treasury attempted to lay it down that it was not the function of the House to inquire into the details of how the Ways and Means Fund should be allocated. Lowndes had established that in general terms long before. In discussion later in the century, at the time of Pitt and George Rose, there was considerable debate as to whether or not it was the proper function of the House to instruct the Treasury as to how it should spend the money voted by the House, and it was then accepted by many constitutional authorities, from Lord Eldon downwards, that it was the perfectly proper function of the House not merely to say to the Treasury, "You may spend such-and-such money", but to say to the Treasury, "You shall spend such-and-such moneys." This is the subject of the whole of our opposition to Clause 1.

§ The Chairman
Order. What the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) says may be so, as far as it goes, but the Clause says nothing about "may" or "shall".

§ The Chairman
The Clause does not say "shall".

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
If one is to accept the belief that not only is the House of Commons responsible for the raising of the revenue of this Kingdom, one must 1778 also take with it the corollary that this House is responsible for how that revenue shall be spent and that it is not to be left to the second hand authority of the Treasury to determine which way that money shall be spent.

§ The Chairman
I repeat that the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss how the money can be spent.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
The Consolidated Fund, in its earliest inception, made an attempt to get round the problem and certain revenues were allocated in advance. This is why at present—as you have indicated, Sir Robert—we cannot discuss how one should allocate such funds.
I am suggesting to the Committee, however, that it is the proper constitutional function of the Committee to determine that the Treasury shall not have discretion beyond a very limited field as to how it shall spend moneys voted by the House of Commons; that in the Consolidated Fund in its origins there was clearly laid down that the House of Commons should keep and for all times maintain to itself the right to examine in great detail on the Consolidated Fund Bill the way in which the Treasury expected at some future point in time to spend taxpayers' money; that Lord Althorp in his Budget speech——

§ The Chairman
Yes, that is true, but the hon. Gentleman must realise that that has been done on Second Reading and it is not really in order on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. Kaufman
On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), but for whom I would have been in the House many years ago, to intervene from a sedentary position when all of us would like to hear from him at length in a standing position?

§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)
On a point of order. I was suggesting that the hon. Gentleman who has been a referee should blow his whistle to try to keep everyone quiet so that we could hear.

§ The Chairman
Order. This is Parliament. A certain amount of merriment is in order, but there is a moment when 1779 things begin to go too far. That point has not actually arrived, but it will arrive very soon if I do not check it now. I beg the Committee to remember that and to remember that we are on serious business. Hon. Members are seeking to debate the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and trying to find some way in which they can stay in order. I have told them publicly, as indeed I have told them outside—I am sure that they will not mind my saying this—that it is very difficult indeed to find a way in which one can debate the Clause and stay in order.
Hon. Members seeking to debate the Clause should bear in mind that the Chair has a duty to the Committee to ensure that the rules of order are strictly interpreted. I am only trying to do my duty as best I can. I therefore hope that hon. Members seeking to speak will do so in a way which would not appear to be, and I am sure they would not wish to be, deliberately trying to provoke me or to goad me in any way. I do not think that they would, but it could appear in public, it could appear in the Press, it could appear to hon. Members on the other side, that that is perhaps what is happening. I hope that they will ponder their words and act accordingly. I have great faith in them and I am sure that I can rely on them.

§ Mr. English
Further to that point of order. I support your remarks, Sir Robert. There is a serious point at issue in this distinction between whether the moneys authorised by Parliament "shall" be expended by the Treasury or whether the Treasury is merely authorised to do so and need not. We are talking about £4,000 million. On that issue, which is an ancient constitutional issue in the House of Commons, you ruled originally that my Amendments were not selected. You did not rule—obviously you have advice on this—that they were out of order. You ruled in the exercise of your discretionary duty not to select them. If they were in order but not selected, I submit to you that that serious issue can and should be discussed on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. There is no facetious intent behind my plea and that of my colleague the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes), who has had previous experi- 1780 ence in a professional capacity in discussing this issue.

§ The Chairman
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the moderation and kindness with which he has put his point of order. To some extent he is right. The word "may" does appear in Clause 1 and anything which concerns "may" would be in order, but it must not be compared with the word "shall", which should not be brought into discussion because it is expressly excluded.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
Although we have spent many years on constitutional issues determining what control the House of Commons shall have over the collection of revenue, the weakest point between the legislature and the executive comes precisely on the Clause we are debating tonight. The power of this Chamber to continue the expenditure of money by the executive is strictly limited. When we say through the medium of the Consolidated Fund that so much money may be permitted to be spent by the Treasury, we hand over to the executive arm powers which we cannot thereafter bring back unto ourselves. Once we pass this Clause, or Clause 2, whether we like it or not, sums well in excess of £3,000 million are gone beyond recall. If we do this with a light heart we do a grave injustice to our predecessors and to our current electors. We wish to establish that the executive, as personified by the Treasury, shall be held totally responsible to this Chamber.
In 1740 Mr. Scrope managed to avoid being attainted on the grounds that he was the only man in the country who knew how to draw up a Treasury Bill. We do not want the Treasury to get away with public money which may be accountable at some long distant future date.

§ The Chairman
Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but we are not here and now in a position to say how the Treasury shall do the things about which the hon. Gentleman is worried. That is why what he says cannot be brought into order, much as I should like to help him.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
If we may not question how the money is spent—and I accept your Ruling—I crave your indulgence to the plea that we may discuss on the Question, That the Clause stand part 1781 of the Bill, the more fundamental constitutional issue of how far, by granting moneys to the Treasury, we are abnegating the rôle of the House of Commons over the expenditure of public funds.

§ The Chairman
It might be a very good thing if we could do so, but we cannot, because the House of Commons reached a decision on Second Reading and because of previous Rulings. We cannot discuss the broad principle which the hon. Gentleman would like to discuss.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
On a point of order. We are in some difficulty. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) is suggesting that he should take the opportunity of discussing the Treasury spending of money on the Consolidated Fund Bill. There are other opportunities on which the Treasury spending of money can be discussed, and it would be wrong to give the impression to the public that the £3,000 million with which the Bill is concerned can be discussed only on this occasion. That is not true. My difficulty is that we have had a Second Reading debate already. I am not aware that any representations were made through the usual channels, or in other ways—[Interruption].

§ The Chairman
Order. I am afraid that I am not responsible for what goes on through the usual channels. What the hon. Member has said is not a point of order.

§ Mr. Lewis
I said, "through the usual channels, or in other ways", Sir Robert. I will correct that and ask whether any representations were made to you, on the basis that since the Consolidated Fund Bill provides an opportunity to hon. Members to debate at length any subjects that appeal to them as private Members, many hon. Members opposite took the opportunity to discuss in the Second Reading debate constituency matters that they wished to bring before Parliament.
Since, in the Second Reading debate, hon. Members opposite were not interested in discussing the Government's spending of moneys through the Bill, what justification have they for wishing to discuss, in Committee, the matters that they failed to raise in the Second Reading debate?

§ The Chairman
Fortunately, I am not concerned with the question of justification. All I am concerned with is the question whether at any given moment something is in order. No doubt hon. Members have heard what the hon. Member has said—but there is no point of order in it.

§ Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, All Saints)
Further to that alleged point of order—or on another point of order, Sir Robert: Even though we respect your Ruling that what the hon. Member raised was not a point of order, may I put it to you for your consideration during the further stages of the debate on the Clause that it goes back to the very basis of our parliamentary right to have the redress of grievances before granting Supply, and that although 28 hon. Members wanted to exercise their right in the Second Reading debate—I was No. 13 and available throughout the night—only eight hon. Members were able to redress their grievances?

§ The Chairman
I have to fall back on what I said before; this is nothing to do with the Clause. We are discussing the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. O'Malley
Sir Robert, the Committee is in some difficulty, and perhaps you can help us. After a Bill has been given a Second Reading it goes on to the Committee stage, when points of detail can be raised, and on each Clause there is a debate which can be very broad, whether the Committee stage takes place upstairs or in the Chamber. Narrow debates arise out of specific Amendments to various Clauses, but the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, is generally broad.
Can you tell us why the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, in respect of the Consolidated Fund Bill should apparently be more tightly drawn than is the case with normal non-finance Bills, and why, for example, it is not in order specifically to discuss the question whether the Treasury may or may not issue out of the Consolidated Fund the specific amount of money referred to in the Clause?

§ The Chairman
I understand the point very well, because on many occasions I have been with the hon. Member in Committees upstairs, where the procedure 1783 he has outlined has been followed. But in this case there is a difference. The Bill and this Clause are founded on a Money Resolution of the House. Any debate following such a Bill has always been very tightly drawn indeed. That is the general principle. That is why we cannot have the sort of thing the hon. Gentleman and myself are so used to in Standing Committee.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
To continue from the ruling you have just made, Sir Robert, may I say that I am concerned about this matter. Every Bill has a Money Resolution which can be debated on a narrow front, but even though a Bill is the subject of a Money Resolution we still have a broad debate on the general principle behind a particular Clause. It seems to me, with respect, that your Ruling tends considerably to narrow the area of debate for my hon. Friends and also for hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a Parliament and we do not want to have voices from only one side. Could you further elucidate your Ruling?

§ The Chairman
I do not know that I can say anything more than I have said, which is that the Bill is founded on a Resolution in Supply. Therefore, it is ipso facto very strictly drawn indeed and the debate which follows on a Clause such as this has to be by the rules of the House extremely tightly drawn.

§ Mr. O'Malley
I am sure we can resolve this matter. You have gone some way, Sir Robert, to explain the position. Could you explain one further matter? Of course, it is the case that the procedure that is laid down is clearly affected by the Money Resolution which is considered in the House and on which, after 10 o'clock, three-quarters of an hour is given for debate. Can you explain why there is a difference between discussion on Clauses of other Bills which are affected directly by a Money Resolution and discussion on this specific Clause in this Bill which is affected in the same way by a Money Resolution?

§ The Chairman
The answer is quite simple. This Bill is literally founded on the Money Resolution. With other Bills, such as the hon. Gentleman and I are used to, the Money Resolution lies on 1784 the table and anybody who wants to look at it can do so, and hardly anybody ever does. But this Bill is different. It is founded on the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Sir Robert, I accept that what you are explaining to the Committee is the fact that we cannot on the Question, That the Clause stand part, debate whether or not the £296 million should be larger or smaller or should be used for this, that or the other purpose. As you will know, Sir Robert, we used to have in the House a great parliamentarian called "Talkey Williams". He was the hon. Member for Torquay and the reason we called him "Talkey" is obvious.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a former Chairman of Ways and Means.

§ Mr Lewis
This is the point I was coming to. He was very knowledgeable about these matters and year after year on this Bill asked for an explanation from the Treasury Bench as to what each word meant. I am asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the point of order?"] I am on a point of order. Do not tell me what to do. [An HON. MEMBER: "You sit down."] Sir Robert, will you please tell the hon. Member that he is out of order in telling you to sit down.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman can safely leave it to me. If he goes on addressing me I will keep the Committee in order.

§ Mr. Lewis
Perhaps you can advise me, Sir Robert, if not hon. Members opposite, whether I am not completely in order in going through the Clause word by word and asking the Treasury to explain what each word means, whether any word has a double meaning or no meaning at all. I want to know, for example, what "Treasury" means. I want to develop this and, provided I do not go outside the wording of the Clause, am I not right in saying that, subject to catching your eye, I can go through each word and ask for explanations? Whether I get them is another matter.

§ The Chairman
I would be a very poor Chairman of Ways and Means if I committed myself to that one at this stage. I think again that we must see what happens. In any case, the hon. Gentleman 1785 might do something which I think he would regret very much and might cause tedious repetition if he did—I am not saying that he would, but he might. I think that it would be better if he seeks to catch my eye and we will see how we get on.
I would have thought on the whole that the Committee did not want to carry this discussion beyond the limits of endurance of all of us. We have a lot of work to do. We had a late night last night. Indeed, we shall have another tomorrow night. I would have thought that, on the whole, we have had an interesting discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We only have to look at the clock to see that we have had more than 25 minutes discussion on what is and what is not in order. Some of the things which have been said have been in order—one can say, "Not many", but there it is. We shall have to see how we get on. I ask the indulgence of the Committee and hope that we can bring matters to a conclusion.

§ Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. Does it not strike at the heart of our parliamentary traditions if the concept of not voting Supply before the redress of grievances is made meaningless by this deliberate abuse through a prolonged and planned filibuster?

§ The Chairman
I personally do not think that anything that has been done so far—I cannot speak for what may happen—is, strictly speaking, beyond the bounds of what is parliamentarily proper. Hon. Members are seeking to find out what is and what is not in order, and I think that they are gradually getting to the root of the matter and are discovering that there is, indeed, very little that can be said that is in order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
On a point of order, Sir Robert. You expressed earlier, and have repeated, your desire for the Committee to act with good sense. The whole Committee agrees with you. There is one thing on which I would seek your advice. Because of the narrowness of the debate, quite rightly you have had to intervene on a number of occasions, and as a consequence there have been a number of points of order to elucidate the correct procedure. This has taken up probably about 20 minutes so far. The Patronage Secretary is in his place, 1786 and when he is in his place he always casts a sinister shadow over the Committee. It may be that in due course he will seek to move the Closure. I seek your advice as to whether, if the Motion for the Closure is moved, you will take into consideration the time that has necessarily been spent on points of order in coming to a decision as to whether the Motion should be accepted.
There is another point on which I seek your guidance. I believe that, after the three Clauses to the Bill have been debated and voted upon—if it is decided that they should be voted upon—we will then move on to Report stage. If so, could you advise me whether, on Report, it would be in order to submit manuscript Amendments on some of the points which arise in Committee and obviously indicate to hon. Members that an Amendment on Report ought to be put down?

§ The Chairman
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman a 100 per cent. accurate answer to this point. There will be no Report stage, there being no Amendments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to put the Bill immediately without more ado for Third Reading.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
May I ask you, Sir Robert, to rule on my point about the Patronage Secretary?

§ The Chairman
That is another matter. It would be extremely foolish of me to express any view about what I should do in any set of circumstances. I prefer to judge that at the appropriate moment.

§ Mr. Carter
On a point of order. My point of order arises from the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley).
I am a comparatively new Member. I have been led to believe that on the Question, That the Clause stand part, it is permissible to discuss those subjects which have not been raised on Second Reading. If so, there are a number of items on the Vote on Account which were not discussed on Second Reading. Is it possible, if not to initiate a debate upon these items, to question the Minister about them? For example, Class XI, item 8, Miscellaneous Expenses, £191,000. Is it in order for us to question the Minister on those items which were not discussed on Second Reading?

§ The Chairman
No, definitely not on this Clause.

§ Mr. Mark Hughes
In view of your Rulings, Sir Robert, I shall, with diffidence, miss out various parts of what I was going to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—and conclude by simply putting this point to the Committee. If we take the Clause on the nod, it is as though we are asking the Committee to accept that it brings together a series of Supplementary Estimates, and so on, already approved by Resolution, and that we are now being asked at this hour to give the Treasury the right to spend, or not to spend, in part or in whole, the sums mentioned in the Clause.
Despite the points of order and the lateness of the hour, I think this matter carries with it a genuine constitutional point as to the accountability of the Treasury to this Chamber which we would be very foolish to let go without making a token protest of our disquiet at what is done.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart
Sir Robert, we are greatly indebted to you for your Rulings earlier this evening. I shall endeavour to stay strictly within the rules of order as you have defined them.
I understood you to give a Ruling that we may discuss the word "may" which appears in Clause 1, but that we must be most careful not to bring into the argument another auxiliary verb of five letters, which I shall be careful, in deference to your Ruling, not to mention. I understood you to say that we may discuss the word "may". This is what I should like to do for a few minutes.
The nature of the difficulty is that we all know, in view of the constitutional and financial proceedings which are the foundation of the Bill, that the word "may" in the Clause does not bear nearly the meaning which it usually has in ordinary speech. It is talking about something which, in the opinion of the Committee, ought to be done and which we take the view will be done. We are giving the word "may" not the permissive——

§ Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)
On a point of order. Is the hon. Member for commercial radio in order constantly to barrack from a sedentary position?

§ The Chairman
I was listening intently to the right hon. Member for Fulham 1788 (Mr. Michael Stewart) and I heard nothing but the right hon. Gentleman. If I hear anything out of order, I shall say so.

§ Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle)
On a point of order. Is it not clearly out of order for one hon. Member to refer to another in those terms?

§ The Chairman
Hon. Members should refer to each other by the names of their constituencies and not in any derogatory way. I do not think that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) meant to be offensive.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
Further to that point of order. I associate the hon. Member so much more with commercial radio than with his constituency that I forget the name of his constituency.

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Member should not address me on that subject. He knows that it is not a point of order. When the Chair has endeavoured to clear up these little difficulties, they are best left there.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
On a point of order. It is obvious from his last remark that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) had every intention of making the offence worse in his rudeness to another hon. Member. Is it not within the power of the Chair to ask him to withdraw?

§ The Chairman
It is within the power of the Chair to ask him to do so. On the strength of what was said, however, I did not think it necessary to go as far as that. I deprecate the use of such terms in references to hon. Members, and I understood that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central accepted that.

§ Mr. Clinton Davis
Further to that point of order. I certainly wish to abide by your Ruling, Sir Robert, and if I have offended in any way, I withdraw the comment. But I have forgotten which is the hon. Member's constituency.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to that point of order. If we are to have withdrawals, one of my hon. Friends distinctly heard the hon. Member who is sitting there with his fingers up to his nose—the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst)—making rude and 1789 offensive remarks about my right hon. Friend the former Foreign Secretary. Should he not withdraw those remarks?

§ The Chairman
If I had heard any such remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "We heard them."]—The Chair must hear them. The Chair is busy listening very hard to the hon. Member who has the Floor, and it is difficult for the Chair also to hear other asides which may be heard by hon. Members. I heard nothing out of order. If I do, I shall act accordingly.

§ Mr. Stewart
I was saying that the word "may" in this Clause clearly has not merely the permissive sense with which we normally associate it; it has something of an imperative sense, because it talks about things that ought to happen, and something of a prophetic sense, because it talks about things which we have every reason to know will happen. Is it now suitable to continue in the Consolidated Fund Bill to use the word "may" in a sense which it no longer bears in ordinary speech? It is not sufficient answer to say that for years the Consolidated Fund Bill has said that the Treasury "may" do this, when in fact it was talking about something that ought to happen and will happen.
There are other examples in statutes where the lawyers will tell us that the word "may" means that very word which you, Sir Robert, have told us not to utter But it is surely a fair point that if, over many years, we have used an ordinary word in the English language in a Statute, and with the passage of time the gap between what the word is supposed to mean in the statute and the way people use it in ordinary speech becomes bigger and bigger, it is then legitimate to ask whether we should not then substitute a different word in the Statute, saying more precisely what we mean.
We have heard examples just recently. You ruled that we "may" discuss the word "may". I did not understand you to be saying that we all must discuss it or even that we all will discuss it. Clearly, you were using the word in a sense which it does not bear in the Clause. When my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) advances a certain proposition, you told 1790 him, "That may be so". It was very clear from your tone of voice that you did not mean, "That will be so", or, "That is so".
So we are driven to consider whether it is right after all these years to go on using the word "may" in this Statute——

§ The Chairman
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we have to discuss what we find in the Clause, and we find the word "may" there. So we cannot, while remaining in order, discuss what may be put in the place of "may" at some future date.

§ Mr. English
On a point of order, Sir Robert, you said, "At some future date", but I hope that, at some later stage in the proceedings, it will be possible to discuss the Public Accounts and Charges Act, which is already passed and already governs the Committee, and which uses the unutterable word for precisely the same purposes, and specifically refers to an Act … authorising a sum to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund. This Bill will be such an Act, and it is precisely contrary to this.

§ The Chairman
I think that that will probably be out of order when we come to it, if we come to it.

§ Mr. O'Malley
On a point of order. Only a few moments ago, Sir Robert, I thought that I had become clear because of the explanation which you had given me of what we may or may not discuss. However, it now seems that a new issue has arisen, since you gave us your guidance some 20 minutes ago, and I would seek clarification on this point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), even up to this stage of his speech, has clearly demonstrated that the manner in which the word "may" is used in the Clause, and indeed its meaning as it is used, because of tradition, in the Clause, is different and perhaps substantially different, from the way in which it is commonly used in the English language.
What worries me is that it appears that your interpretation is based on the fact that you have accepted that the word, as it is used in the Clause, is being used as it is commonly understood today. If my right hon. Friend is right, would you 1791 not consider what interpretation you put on the discussion which is allowable under the Bill?

§ The Chairman
No, I would not be prepared to reconsider that. We must not get into an "Alice in Wonderland" world, in which it was Humpty Dumpty who said, "It is not what the word means but what I choose it to mean." I do not want any hon. Member to get into that position. The meaning of the Clause is clear. It clearly says that the Treasury … may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom a certain sum of money.
It is not mandatory. It is permissive. Indeed, I would have thought that it was as clear as daylight. I remind hon. Members that the right hon. Member for Fulham is in the middle of making a speech.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order. May I suggest, with the utmost respect, that perhaps you may not be correct in your interpretation of this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not for a moment saying you are wrong. However, you said that "may" could have a double meaning. This was admitted earlier in the day by the Solicitor-General. Would it not be wise for the Solicitor-General to be sent for so that his opinion could be received by both the Committee and you, Sir Robert?

§ The Chairman
I cannot agree with the hon. Member. To me the matter is quite simple. If I thought there were a serious legal difficulty which should be explained by a Law Officer, then while I am not able to send for one, I have no doubt that those in charge of the Bill would wish to send for one. However, the whole matter seems perfectly simple to me and perhaps the right hon. Member for Fulham will be allowed to complete his remarks.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to my last point of order. My right hon. Friend may inadvertently be out of order unless we get this point cleared up. I urge those in charge of the Bill to have a Law Officer present to advise the Committee.

§ The Chairman
That is not a point of order for me. The right hon. Member 1792 for Fulham must make his speech in his own way, and if, unwittingly, he strays out of order and is called to order by the Chair, I am sure that, like all hon. Members, he will immediately obey the ruling of the Chair.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan (Cardigan)
Further to that point of order. May I draw your attention to the long title of the Bill? It reads: A Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 3st March 1971 and 1972". In my submission, the wording of the long Title is such as not to admit to the possibility that those sums are not to be applied. If it were intended that the application of these sums should be a permissive matter, surely those words would have read "A Bill to allow the application of certain sums". There would, therefore, appear to be a fundamental conflict between what is a permissive power in the body of the Bill and the long Title, which does not admit to the possibility of the sums being so applied.

§ The Chairman
No, there is no substance in that point. It is not necessary for the Government to spend all the money for which it asks.

§ Mr. McNamara
Will my right hon. Friend allow me? He has been debating the difference between "may" and "shall" with reference to whether the Government should or should not pay in any situation. Does he have it in mind to suggest that it would be helpful to have the First Lord of the Treasury here to explain what the practice of his Department is?

§ Mr. Tapsell
On a point of order. Sir Robert, you reminded the Committee about 40 minutes ago that this is Parliament and that we should be conscious of that fact. Is it not a sad reflection that even so distinguished a Member as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has now been interrupted repeatedly on points of order by members of his own party?

§ The Chairman
That is not a point of order. Hon. Members must decide 1793 what their best manners are; it is not for me to be a judge of that. There is nothing unparliamentary in what has been done, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should now be allowed to continue his speech.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart
As I said, Sir Robert, I was trying to keep in order by confining myself strictly to the question whether the word "may" is a good word to use in this Clause. I do not think that it can be contended that to argue that is out of order. I advise those hon. Members who seem to imagine that the argument on which we are engaged is undignified and not suitable to the occasion to look back into history to the times when the Opposition have obliged Government Members to stay here a little longer than they might otherwise have wished. They will find that on several occasions, although there was always a certain amount of merriment in the exercise, important constitutional results flowed from it.
I remember very well a notable exercise in which there were many exchanges and points of order, and much delay, but which ended in the appointment of a Select Committee which performed the most useful work of bringing the Army Act up to date.
I am directing attention to one word in one Clause of this small Bill, but the point I am raising about the desirability of ensuring that the Bill really does say in twentieth-century English—which is how the courts will interpret it—what we wish it to say raises the general question of whether our whole machinery for raising, applying and appropriating money and giving legal authority for it is up to date.
I ask hon. Members, therefore, not to be too impatient if they think that I have taken what seems a pernickety point, because it is out of points like this, and a careful consideration of them, that important constitutional discoveries may be made.
Here is an example to illustrate my point about the difference between what the word "may" is likely to mean in this Clause and the common usage of the word. There was an article recently in either the Daily Telegraph or the Sunday Telegraph—I forget which—about what is sometimes called the permissive society. 1794 The author began by saying that for a sound morality one must have simply two principles—"Though shalt" and "Thou shalt not"—and he added that "Thou mayest" is no basis for morality. Since that article appeared in the Telegraph, one must assume that it was meant to make sense. Clearly, the word was being used there in a sense which it does not bear in the Bill.
I shall refer briefly now to a historical episode which shows that the House should be careful, even pedantic, in ensuring that the documents which go out under its authority, whether statutes or Orders, present their meaning plainly in twentieth-century English. In using the word "may" here we are sticking to ancient form, but if we go on doing that for too long we fail to express our meaning properly.
The example that I have in mind from the history of the 18th century refers not to a Statute but an order issued by the House directing a certain gentleman to attend at the Bar of the House. He was a Mr. John Wheble, who had printed what purported to be reports of the debates of the House. In those days that was considered to be a contempt of Parliament and a breach of privilege. It was resolved, therefore, that he should be ordered to attend the House. The Clerk, with great care for ancient forms, wrote at the top of the order, since it was Thursday, the words Die Jovis and underneath he wrote: Ordered, That I. Wheble —the capital letter "I" being in those days the usual formal way of expressing a Christian name beginning with "J"— do attend this House on Tuesday next. This was sent by the Clerk, who, if anyone had raised the question whether everything was being done properly could have replied, "It is always done like this."
But what happened? Mr. Wheble employed a lawyer, who sent a message back to the House of Commons saying, "'I. Wheble' is not a legal description of anybody. You might as well have written 'Eye Wheble' or 'Nose Wheble' as to take this for a description of Mr. John Wheble". He further said, "Mr. Wheble is ordered to attend the House on Tuesday next, when the document so 1795 ordering him has a date recorded only in a language which an Englishman is not under a legal obligation to understand. Therefore,"——

§ The Chairman
Order. This is a fascinating story, but it is not germane to what we are discussing.

§ Mr. Stewart
The story is nearly over. The lawyer pointed out that Mr. Wheble was ordered to attend "on Tuesday next", but there was nothing in the order to say what day the Tuesday was to be next after.
Further, it was pointed out that Mr. Wheble was simply ordered to attend "this House", with no more precise definition of what the House was, and that since the order was addressed to Mr. Wheble "this House" was most likely to mean his house, and that surely he best complied with the order by staying at home.
All hon. Members will be glad to hear, Sir Robert, that that is the end of the story.

§ The Chairman
Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is overdoing it and trespassing a little too far upon my patience. He has not mentioned the word "may" for a very long time. He should leave that story now. It has been a good one so far, but it would be going too far to let it continue.

§ Mr. Stewart
After all that, the House decided not to proceed with its order against Mr. Wheble, because it thought that it would look foolish if it did. The point of the whole story, and why it is relevant to our discussions, is that that is what comes of continuing to express oneself in ancient, traditional forms, however carefully one copies the traditions, without considering whether there is not too great a gap between those forms and the ordinary modes of speech of people in the century in which one lives.
I have often wondered about the word "may" not only in the Statute before us but in a number of others.

§ Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)
On a point of order.

§ Mr. Stewart
I shall be sitting down in two minutes.

§ Mr. Tebbit
On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to bring into the discussion the question of the meaning of the word in other Measures? Are we confining ourselves to the one on the Order Paper?

§ The Chairman
This is a very difficult question upon which to adjudicate. I am doing my best to keep the right hon. Gentleman in order. I hope that he will finish with this "may", since it is almost impossible for other hon. Members to pursue this line of argument without tedious repetition.

§ Mr. Stewart
I was talking about "may", since I understand that it was the only matter that we could discuss. If it were only the length of time that I have taken, I do not believe that it would total more than about 10 minutes——

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
More like 20.

§ Mr. Stewart
I know that I have been trying to speak for 20 minutes, but that is quite different. In any event, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has taken more than his fair share of that time.
If we in this House want our procedures to be respected, we must see that they are expressed—[Interruption.] I must point out to certain hon. Members opposite that the fact that they do not understand an argument does not mean that it is not a good one.

§ Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)
We have always respected the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart). He is a man of great integrity. Does he think that the proceedings during the last half hour have done the House of Commons any good?

§ Mr. Stewart
I can answer only for the part that I have played in them. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read my speech when it is published, he will see that it is a connected argument on the one point that our Chairman has told us that we may discuss. I admit that I introduced a somewhat light-hearted anecdote, but it was to the point. If one could never do that in a speech, this House would be a poorer place.
Possibly at the end of the discussion on this Question, we may hear from the Treasury Bench why the word "may" 1797 is still used and whether the Government will consider in future using a more modern wording for this Act, which is a vital part of our constitution.

§ Mr. Kenneth Lewis
On a point of order, Sir Robert. In proceedings which have lasted for about three-quarters of an hour, half an hour or more has been taken up with points of order. There has been no indication in the speeches which we have heard from the other side of the Committee that there is any ability on those benches to discuss this Clause. When the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has to spend so much time telling a funny story and cannot relate his argument effectively to the Bill, it is clear that we have reached an "Alice in Wonderland" situation.
I remind hon. Members that we are not only keeping ourselves here. We are keeping members of the staff of the House here, and they will have to be here on other nights. I think that we should have regard to that fact. Therefore, Sir Robert, I ask you to consider accepting a Motion, That the Question be now put. If you do not accept it, then I shall walk out of the Chamber, and I hope that some of my hon. Friends will join me.

§ The Chairman
I do not think that I can accept that Motion at the moment. In any event—[Interruption.] In considering whether I ought to accept it, I should first want to hear from a Government spokesman.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Further to that point of order. With great respect, some of us feel that the standard of debate has deteriorated to the point at which Parliament is in danger of being brought into serious disrepute. May I put it to you, Sir Robert, as the custodian of the traditions of the Chair, that it is your duty to prevent that happening?

§ The Chairman
My duty is do the best that I can by the Committee as a whole. I hope and trust that the Committee will not pursue me beyond the limits of human endurance. I have done my best to listen to everyone. I have a duty to perform, as I have said before. I honestly think that the Committee would do more honour to itself and to the system if it now let this matter drop.

§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
It is not my purpose at this hour to delay the Committee for more than a few moments. In the light of some of the remarks you made earlier, Sir Robert, in attempting to explain the limits of this debate, I felt it right to probe a little more closely the import of what you have said. It is obviously a matter of some seriousness that such an important Measure is not susceptible to debate in Committee. The reasons for that must be considered very closely.
As I understood it, you purported to suggest that the reason for confining the debate to such considerations as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) gave in his speech was that the House had already resolved that certain things from which this Consolidated Fund Bill emanated would take place. Because we had passed a Resolution to the effect of the purposes contained with the Consolidated Fund Bill we could not consider in detail these matters.
It must be open to this Committee to consider in detail, if not those words in Clause 1—[Interruption.] We must consider "shall" instead of "may". It must be legitimate, too, to give some consideration whether the Bill accurately reflects the intentions of the Resolution to which this House has already given its assent. Bearing that in mind it is appropriate to look at the wording of the Resolution and the wording of the Bill and consider whether the Bill is an accurate reflection of Resolution. I tried to do this and turned to the Votes on Proceedings of the House, 31st January, in which I believe the Resolution is recorded.
A number of points spring to mind which suggest that the Bill is by no means an exact or accurate reflection of the Resolution and that it goes much wider and in most important respects is more specific. For example, the Resolution put by Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, read as follows: The Speaker proceeded pursuant to the Order this day to put the Question forthwith that a supplementary sum not exceeding 296,822,000 be granted to Her Majesty"——

§ The Chairman
Order. I will not seriously quarrel with the hon. Gentleman but he must not discuss in detail 1799 what the Resolution was because it has been agreed to by the House.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I was not proposing to discuss it at all. I was merely referring to it to compare it in substance with the terms of the Bill because it seems that there is a clear discrepancy between the words of the Bill and the words of the Resolution in a number of respects. One is that the House resolved that a sum be granted to Her Majesty: … not exceeding the sum of £296,822,000 whereas the Bill per contra refers to a precise sum of £296,822,000. The House resolved nothing so specific as is put forward in the Bill.

§ The Chairman
May I help the hon. Gentleman? I can put his mind at rest. It is the normal way in which this is done, year in and year out.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I fully appreciate that, Sir Robert. But the mere fact of something having gone through year after year does not remove from hon. Members the right to examine whether what is being done is being done fittingly and whether a better form of words would be appropriate.
I do not wish to labour the point about the precise sum in the Bill as opposed to an amount not exceeding that sum. There is a considerable difference. It may be that the wording of the Resolution should be looked at. It would be more appropriate to do that when the Resolution is brought forward. But it ought to be for consideration tonight whether the Bill's wording is appropriate in the light of the Resolution, and whether we ought to consider that the Bill ought to refer to a sum not exceeding £296,822,000, instead of the sum of £296,822,000.

§ Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)
You, Sir Robert, in reply to a point of order, said that Parliament could vote a certain sum of money but that it was up to the Treasury whether it spent all of that money. I hope that I have stated that correctly. Surely the wording which my hon. Friend ought to be talking about on this Clause is "up to an amount of £296,822,000." If your Ruling, Sir Robert, were correct, surely the wording here ought to be up to that specific sum rather than not exceeding that specific sum, or the sum itself. Surely we are 1800 tying the Treasury's hands in the present wording of the Clause.

§ The Chairman
Order. That will not do either. There is nothing about the words "up to" in the Resolution. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) is putting an interpolation on it. That is quite a natural thing to do, but strictly speaking it is not in order.

§ Mr. Maclennan
I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, and to my hon. Friend. He was attempting to give the sense of what was in the Resolution, although it might be argued that perhaps the words of the Resolution exactly might be more appropriate than those which he suggested.
A number of other difficulties arise if one compares the Resolution with the Bill. For example, it is specified in the Resolution to which the House has agreed that the sum be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It does not specify by whom the sum will be granted to Her Majesty or who will act as agent in this matter, for the House presumably. In the Bill it is quite specific that the Treasury has this power. Although I do not see why this automatically follows, nonetheless it is a noticeable difference between the wording of the Resolution and the Bill.
I have made the general point which may open the discussion a good deal wider than perhaps some hon. Members might have considered possible, by drawing attention to the differences which exist between the Resolution and the Bill.
I give notice that in future considerations of this Bill the House ought to bear this very much in mind and consider carefully whether there ought to be closer correspondence between the Bill and the Resolution if the Bill is not to be debated. While it is perfectly acceptable that if the House has already agreed something, there is no reason why it should be re-examined at length, it is not so acceptable that there should be any implication that the House has agreed to something which plainly it has not agreed to. I commend these considerations to the House.

§ Mr. Kaufman
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) mentioned a matter which has greatly concerned me in my consideration 1801 of the Bill and which will concern me when we debate the later Clauses; I refer to the need for legislation to be phrased in easily comprehensible twentieth century English.
What disturbs me about the Clause is that the Bill, like all Bills, is subject for its language to the interpretation of the Interpretation Act, 1889. This Act governs every Act of Parliament and every Order that comes before Parliament. It is a matter of concern to me that a Bill of this kind, dealing with the issuing of large sums of money—altogether more than £5,000 million—should be phrased so loosely that the Interpretation Act, if applied to the Bill strictly, could turn the Bill into total nonsense and prohibit the Government from spending the £296 million to be granted in this financial year and the £4,835 to be granted in the next financial year.
Altogether other words could be chosen. I choose simply three of the words which are contained in the Clause and which are defined in the Interpretation Act, 1889 and which therefore, if the Bill is enacted, will apply to an Act of Parliament. The first of these is the second word in the Clause, namely "Treasury". Section 12 of the Interpretation Act 1889 says this about "Treasury": The expression 'the Treasury' shall mean the Lord High Treasurer for the time being". This is a serious point, although this is how the Interpretation Act, which governs the Bill, defines it. Who is the Lord High Treasurer? There are the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Chief Secretary. There is the First Lord of the Treasury. To my knowledge, there is no Lord High Treasurer. I notice with pleasure the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who holds an office which is greatly to be respected. He knows a great deal, because he operates in the office; yet he, with great experience in the House of Commons, cannot tell us who the Lord High Treasurer for the time being is.

§ Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)
Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the office of Lord High Treasurer is in commission and that the office is exercised by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.

§ Mr. Kaufman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman is making a point which arises on the second half of Section 12(2) of the 1889 Act which says— or the Commissioners for the time being of Her Majesty's Treasury". If we are to define words, we must define them with clarity. The hon. Member for Chigwell said that we have Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, but this Section refers to "Commissioners for the Treasury". This is a specific definition, because the 1889 Act deals simply with the definition of words. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman says that the office of Lord High Treasurer is in commission and that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury are doing the work of the Lord High Treasurer, he is drawing attention to a defect either in the 1889 Act or in the Bill. The Interpretation Act, 1889, on which the definition in the Bill depends, does not mention Lords Commissioners of the Treasury but mentions Commissioners for the time being of Her Majesty's Treasury.
1.30 a.m.
My other point of substance concerns Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act. Clause 1 of the Consolidated Fund Bill refers to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. Section 18(1) of the Interpretation Act refers to the "British Islands" and it says: The expression 'British Islands' shall mean the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. We can set aside the phrase "British Islands" and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man——

§ The Chairman
Order. I do not understand what this has to do with the Bill.

§ Mr. Kaufman
I am about to clarify it.

§ Mr. Ernie Money (Ipswich)
There is on the Order Paper a Motion for the Adjournment in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on a subject of considerable importance. Many hon. Members are in the Chamber to listen to the debate and, if possible, to take part in it. The rights of back benchers on the Motion for the Adjournment are continually being affected by the length of the observations of some hon. Members. If speeches are 1803 lengthy and cause risibility, serious subjects will suffer. I ask you to rule, Mr. Chairman, that speeches which are far away from the Motion are not in order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
Further to that point of order. The hon. Gentleman has drawn to your attention a valid point of order. We are all anxious to hear my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), and there are also on the Order Paper the Vehicles (Excise) Bill and the Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs and Excise) Bill for debate tonight. A large number of my hon. Friends wish to speak on those Bills, and I understand that there will be difficulties in hon. Members remaining in order. We shall, therefore, be faced with a series of points of order. Is it possible for the Lord President of the Council to say for how long he will allow the Committee to continue to sit, and whether we shall have the pleasure tonight of debating the Bills on the Order Paper?

§ The Chairman
Unfortunately, that is strictly not for the Chairman of Ways and Means but for Mr. Deputy Speaker, when he gets here, which I hope will be soon. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself in patience until the committee decides to terminate its business. So long as it wishes to go on with it, it is my duty to see that it does and that it keeps order. All I can do is to echo the sentiments expressed by hon. Gentlemen that the Committee will come speedily to a conclusion, so that the House can come together again and get on with its business. I cannot prejudge what the House will do.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to that point of order. We understand what you have said, Sir Robert, but my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has made a valid point, as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis).

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member may have raised a valid point, but it is not a point of order. I cannot adjudicate on it.

§ Mr. Lewis
I appreciate that, Sir Robert. I was saying that if, as I understand is the case, it is within your prerogative to help both hon. Members who have tried to raise points of order— 1804 mention has been made of the staff of the House as well—by accepting a Motion to report Progress, I suggest that we should seriously consider that course.

§ The Chairman
That cannot be raised as a point of order, in any case.

§ Mr. Lewis
In that case, I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

§ The Chairman
Unfortunately, I cannot accept such a Motion from the hon. Gentleman at the moment, for the simple reason that he does not have the Floor of the Committee. It is in the possession of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mrs. Kaufman).

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
I apologise for rising again, Sir Robert, but I think that you inadvertently misled the Committee in indicating that I had suggested that the Committee should speedily come to a conclusion. If the Lord President were prepared to facilitate the business of the Committee by indicating how much business he wishes to take tonight, we should be delighted to get on to the Adjournment debate after we have debated the three Clauses of the Bill. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on Clause 2, but it would facilitate business and affect our whole attitude to the proceedings of the Lord President could give us some indication of his intentions.

§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)
I do not know whether I am in order, in Committee, in saying anything, but I shall do so if you will permit me, Sir Robert.

§ The Chairman
I think that the Committee would welcome a few words from the Lord President.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill is normally taken very briefly. I accept the point made about the Adjournment debate. We are also very sensitive about the position of the staff, who have had to stay here for a considerable number of hours. It is important to get the Bill at this stage, and I hope that hon. Members would feel able to facilitate its passage. If that were the case I can say that it would not be the intention to move either of the other two Bills tonight.

§ Mr. Kaufman
I take into account what the right hon. Gentleman said. Therefore, Sir Robert, I do not wish to detain the Committee. My point has some substance, and I hope that I shall be able to return to it on another occasion. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I am prepared to bring by remarks to an end—although I would wish on future occasions to come back to the Interpretation Act, a matter which I regard as of great seriousness and importance to our proceedings.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
My hon. Friends have discussed this matter through the usual channels, and we should like to express our sincere appreciation to the Leader of the House for the way in which he has helped us. We feel that we can now allow the Minister to reply on Clause 1, and if he can make his comments wide enough we shall probably not need to worry about Clause 2. We can then get on with the business and allow the Adjournment debate to take place. Perhaps the Minister can deal with the Bill in that way and save the time of the Committee.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I am delighted to accept the invitation of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say a few words in reply to the debate on this Clause. It would, I think, be helpful if I were to explain how the Bill arises. I shall also endeavour to do my best to remain in order.
The Bill deals with two matters, the Winter Supplementary Estimates 1970–71 and the Appropriation Account for 1971–72. To deal with the latter first because, although it relates to next year, it came before the House first in time, it was on 5th November of last year at the end of a two-day debate on public expenditure——

§ Mr. English
On a point of order. Is not the Minister replying to Clause 2, rather than to Clause 1?

§ Mr. Jenkin
I was invited by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) to make my remarks relevant to both Clauses and I thought that rather than make similar points on Clause 2, I could deal with both now. But if hon. Members wish me to leave that matter I shall be happy to do so.
1806 The first point I wish to make is that the first of the Resolutions on which the Bill is founded was passed on 5th November and was related to the business on Supply covering the Vote on Account. The House was kind enough to agree to that Resolution. Then on 21st January this year I moved a further Resolution relating to the business on Supply covering the Winter Supplementary Estimates, of which notice had been given. Again, I am happy to say that the House agreed to that Motion. Thereupon the Consolidated Fund Bill was immediately brought in and read a First time. It received its Second Reading on Monday and finished yesterday morning. That is why we have now arrived at the Committee stage.
I should explain what the Bill actually does since this may help to resolve some of the doubts and anxieties expressed by hon. Members. The Bill authorises the Treasury to issue a certain sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund and apply it in making good the Supply voted by the House. There are two types of Bill which achieve this purpose. One type is founded on the Supplementary Estimates and the Votes on Account. The second type, which comes at the end of the whole Supply season, is the Appropriation Bill. The Bill before us tonight is of the former kind. This is not an Appropriation Bill. It does not appropriate money for any particular purpose. It is in part for that reason not appropriate to discuss the details of the expenditure covered by the sum.
I have said that the purpose of the Bill is to authorise the issue of money from a particular source, namely the Consolidated Fund. The debate has turned substantially on the use of the word "may" in Clause 1. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) that it is right and proper that Governments should always look at old forms and old procedures to see whether they remain appropriate in current conditions. I suggest to the Committee that the form in which the Bill now is, which is virtually in the identical form as that introduced by the previous Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was so distinguished a Member, is entirely appropriate for the purpose for which it exists.
1807 The key is to be found in the interesting and relevant remarks of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He pointed out to the Committee the conjuncture of the Resolutions on which the Bill is founded. He said that the Resolution voted the Supply in a sum "not exceeding" the figure mentioned in the Resolution. That was the Resolution of the House on Supply.
1.45 a.m.
Clause 1 does no more than empower the Treasury to issue any part of the sums or the whole of them so voted out of the Consolidated Fund. The sum in the Resolution is a maximum figure and therefore it is entirely right that the word "may", which authorises, should be used in these cases. I cannot do better than rely upon the words of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, one of my predecessors, who, in a similar debate ten years ago said: The reason why we always have 'may' in a Consolidated Fund Bill and not 'shall' is because it obviously would be wrong to compel the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund if that did not prove to be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 211.] One cannot say more today than that. That is the reason why "may" is there and not "shall".
The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) raised some interesting points but I think that they were answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and others, and he will recognise, I am sure, that perhaps the constitutional points which he raised were not entirely appropriate to the Bill.
I emphasise that the Bill is not concerned with the raising of money by taxation or borrowing. That would be dealt with in a Bill introduced on a Ways and Means Resolution. It is not directly concerned with expenditure because that was covered by the Supply Resolutions I mentioned. Here, we are purely dealing with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund.
I hope that I shall be held to have done my best to answer the substantive questions which have engaged the attention of hon. Members. Our rules of order would, I fear, permit me to go little or no further than that. I hope that the Committee will now agree to accept the Clause.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman on behalf, I am sure, of both sides, and I thank you, Sir Robert, for the kindly and courteous manner in which you have dealt with a very difficult situation.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
The Question is——

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I seek your guidance? I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has the Adjournment and I see that the Minister is here.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to break the conventions of the House, which are that if the hon. Member who has the Adjournment is not here, that is it.

§ Mr. Lewis
I accept the conventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but what if the business collapses because my hon. Friend may be otherwise occupied, particularly since the Minister is here? Is there not a possibility that my hon. Friend may be on his way? If that is so, can we not keep the Minister here until we know whether my hon. Friend is on his way?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Not without breaking the convention of the House.