ISSUE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH 1978

HC Deb 28 July 1977 vol 936 cc1320-75

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

10.55 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I know that it is unusual for there to be any debate at all during the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. One reason for this is that the rules of order are, by precedent, drawn very tightly indeed. It is for that reason that I ask for your guidance. I understand that it is permissible to move and to debate amendments on the Committee stage of this Bill, the object of which is to ensure the application of the grants made by Parliament at an earlier stage in our proceedings, although, of course, such debate and such amendments must be restricted to the principle of appropriation.

I have consulted the precedents and I find that in the debate on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on 21st December 1888 the Chairman ruled that it was permissible for an hon. Member to discuss whether it is expedient that the Supply which has already been granted by the House should or should not be appropriated". A little later, the same Chairman said that it was in order—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are dealing with Clause 1. I think that the hon. Gentleman has moved on to Clause 2.

Sir B. Braine

With great respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, I am raising a point of order. So that I may decide whether to catch your eye on Clause 1, or Clause 2, or on the schedules to the Bill, it is necessary for me to explain what my point of order is. I hope that you will permit me to do so. I will be very brief.

The Chairman later said that it was in order to adduce to the Committee any reasons for not appropriating Supply in this way, and for not binding the Treasury by law to spend the money in the way provided by the Bill". Although I can think of many reasons why the whole of the £22,000 million involved should not be issued out of the Consolidated Fund Bill for the year ending 31st March 1978, Mr. Godman Irvine, I recognise that you would quickly call me to order on that point because the House has already expressed its will about that sum of money. But I am concerned with a valid point in regard to a particular appropriation listed in Schedule (B), and my point of order simply is this: as we may take some time to get through Clauses 1 and 2, would it be in order, provided I gave you notice in advance, for you to accept a manuscript amendment to enable me to raise my point on Schedule (B)?

The Second Deputy Chairman

It may be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman if I mention that the Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill is merely the machinery for carrying out the decisions of the House in Committee of Supply and corresponds exactly to the Votes then passed. Of course, there are proper occasions on which this question can be raised"— [Official Report, 23rd September 1915; Vol. LXXIV, c. 586.] The hon. Gentleman will see that statement in the Official Report of 23rd September 1915. Amendments cannot he moved to clauses or schedules to effect the omission or reduction of the amount of a grant, or of the appropriations in aid of it, or an alteration in the destination of a grant…". That the hon. Gentleman will find set out on page 747 of "Erskine May."

Sir B. Braine

I accept everything that you have said, Mr. Godman Irvine, but the point I wish to raise is a different one. It concerns whether certain moneys have been taken into the Consolidated Fund in connection with a particular matter—which perhaps you will allow me to develop now—and then to be issued out of it. My suspicion is that in an important matter of policy of external affairs concerning a dependency of this country the Government have fallen short of their obligations. I can raise the matter only by turning to a particular appropriation under a particulate vote. All I am asking you is whether I could move an amendment at a suitable opportunity, which I suggest is when we come to Schedule (B), in order that the point can be deployed.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at page 746 of "Erskine May", he will see that it says: On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed.

Sir B. Braine

I have in my hand the relevant extract from "Erskine May". I am concerned not with the details of expenditure but with the way in which the money is appropriated and spent. You will find, Mr. Godman Irvine, by consulting "Erskine May" further, that it is permissible to debate this. That being so, I must ask once again whether I can put in a manuscript amendment at the appropriate stage in order that the point can be discussed.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I would not be prepared to accept an amendment in those terms.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. You referred my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to page 746 of "Erskine May." I wonder whether I may invite your attention to page 747, from which I read: debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation. I submit that it is perfectly clear from that statement that not only is debate on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill in order but amendments are in order as well, provided, of course, that those amendments are restricted to the principle of appropriation.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I referred the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) to page 747 as well. That was under consideration. What the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has not done is look at the ruling of 1888, when the Deputy Chairman, Sir John Gorst, said: Supply has been already voted. The amount has been already determined. The only question for this Committee is, whether the Treasury shall be compelled by law to appropriate the money which comes into the hands in a certain way. That was on 21st December 1888, and is reported in Hansard at Column 979. Sir John Gorst later said: … the question in this case is whether, by law, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury are or are not to be bound to apply money already voted by Parliament in the way in which Parliament orders. That is reported in c. 982 of Hansard of 21st December 1888.

Mr. Gow

I fully appreciate that, Mr. Godman Irvine, but since the nineteenth edition of "Erskine May" was published last year, it is difficult to follow how the ruling to which you have just referred can supersede the very words that I read out from page 747 of "Erskine May." If the current edition of "Erskine May" says, as it does, that debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation surely that must be final, binding and ultimate guidance in this matter, unless, since the publication of the nineteenth edition, there has been a ruling by the Chairman or Mr. Speaker which is in conflict with page 747. In the absence of any ruling by Mr. Speaker or by the Chairman of Ways and Means varying page 747, it seems as though that must be the definitive practice of the Committee, and I ask you to rule on two specific submissions.

The first submission is that it is in order to have a debate restricted to the principle of appropriation on each clause and on each schedule to the Bill. The second is that it is in order to submit amendments to you, provided. of course, that they are restricted to the principle of appropriation.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman has quoted from page 747. On that page it says precisely in the terms he has quoted to me: debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation", and if he takes a look at the footnote on the same page he will find that the basis of it is the ruling by Sir John Gorst to which I have referred.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine—

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

Overgrown schoolboy No. 1.

Mr. Tebbit

I must say that if I had the choice of being an overgrown schoolboy or a senile old man, I would prefer the former. There is at least opportunity to improve, whereas those who are already senile have seen it all go by.

You have already ruled on two points, Mr. Godman Irvine. I wish, first, to refer to the more general of those points and then to the more particular matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).

On the more general point, you observed that it was—I think these were your words—"not normal" that there should be a debate at this stage of the Bill. May I refer you, Mr. Godman Irvine, to certain volumes of Hansard—although not exclusively to that source —namely, those reporting the business of the House on 26th March 1913, on 20th February 1961, on 22nd February 1961 and on 16th February 1971?

As you will see, Mr. Godman Irvine, those are the more recent occasions on which there has been debate in Committee on the Bill—and debate at some length, if I may say so. I do not know whether those occasions would fall under the heading of what you would regard as abnormal, but certainly, whether normal or abnormal, those occasions took place, and, as you will readily recollect, some of the debates were fairly lengthy.

Clearly, they could not have been disorderly debates since the Chair would not have so allowed. Moreover, the points raised in those debates, or parallel points, could, therefore, again be raised in the debate that we have today.

You will recollect, Mr. Godman Irvine, that during the proceedings in 1961 it was discovered by a very alert member of the then Opposition—I am not entirely sure, without checking further, but I think that it was the late Mr. Gaitskell or Mr. Diamond, as he then was—

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

Not overgrown schoolboys by any means.

Mr. Tebbit

—neither of whom was an overgrown schoolboy and neither of whom was senile, which was a great advantage, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) may or may not appreciate—[Interruption.]—and they were ably assisted on that occasion—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. It is difficult for me to give any ruling on a point of order when I have not heard very much of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. The impression I have at the moment is that we are not getting to a point of order.

Mr. Tebbit

On the contrary, Mr. Godman Irvine, if I may say so, the point that I am putting is that in the debate in 1961 in particular, because of the skill and attention to their duty of distinguished former Members of the House, as well as such a distinguished Member as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the former Government Chief Whip, it was discovered that the Bill was incorrect, that there was a mistake in it.

Initially, Sir Edward Boyle, as he then was, and the late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke attempted to make the point to the Chair that it did not matter. The Chair, very rightly, took the view that it did matter, and on that occasion, after considerable debate both on matters of substance and on the particular question, the debate was adjourned and resumed two days later, again continuing at considerable length.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. prospect of a further two days' debate fills me with great interest, and I would not in any way wish to inhibit the hon. Gentleman in having such debate as is in order. But I have already tried to indicate what the scope is. If the hon. Gentleman will confine himself purely to that we may, I think, make some progress.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Tebbit

Indeed, Mr. Godman Irvine. I have already put to you that there has been debate at length at this stage of the Bill on three occasions within recent times—certainly, I imagine, within the memory of the hon. Member for Watford. May I ask you to direct your attention to column 203 of Hansard for 20th February 1961? You will find there the report of the speech of Mr. Diamond, as he then was, discussing at considerable length the inflationary or deflationary effects of either enacting the Bill or not enacting it, with reference to Clause 1 and the sums of money mentioned therein. That was a substantial debate, dealing with the inflationary and deflationary effects of releasing or failing to release these moneys from the Consolidated Fund. The debate was sub- sequently replied to by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, again at some length.

We can thus see from those events in 1961 a strong precedent for discussing the general inflationary and deflationary effects of the release of these sums of money out of the Consolidated Fund and into the economy. I am sure that the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will wish to stay here to listen to debate on these matters, debate in which, no doubt, many of my hon. Friends will wish to engage and which you, Mr. Godman Irvine, I am sure, will hold to be within order in accordance with the precedent of 1961.

The Second Deputy Chairman

On 19th July by resolution the House approved the present Bill, and that, I think, puts the hon. Gentleman into some difficulty.

Mr. Tebbit

With respect, no, because in precisely similar fashion the House by resolution had already approved the Bill in 1961.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are considering Clause 1, and if the hon. Gentleman has some relevant remarks to make about Clause 1 I am ready to hear him.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. May I revert to your ruling as to the manner in which we should approach the Committee stage of the Bill? As I understood it, your ruling was that we were entitled to put down amendments to question the manner of application of the funds which we are being asked to vote today. May I, therefore, ask you to refer to page 11 of the Bill, Schedule (B), Part 4. This is a practical point, not a hypothetical question, on which I seek your guidance. You will there see, under Class II Vote 7— For Her Majesty's foreign and other secret services". Reverting to the point earlier made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), I should wish to put down a manuscript amendment—it is on this that I seek your guidance—to the effect that of the sum of £l½ million at least £l million should be appropriated to the improved bugging of No. 10 Downing Street, since it is apparent that we should explore with great particularity what has been going on and whether there has been a substantial breach of security.

Of course, I wish in no way to impugn the honour of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) or of the present Prime Minister—no doubt, we shall wish to explore the matter in general on another occasion, though whether today I know not—but I wish to know whether I may put down a manuscript amendment to the effect that £1 million be specifically applied under that Vote for the improvement of the—if I may use that rather coarse word again—bugging of No. 10. Would you accept such an amendment, Mr. Godman Irvine?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have already referred the House to page 746 of "Erskine May", where it is said that subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed". Therefore, I could not accept such an amendment.

Mr. Rees

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I must have misunderstood the scope of your ruling. Perhaps at this hour of the morning I am rather more obtuse than are some hon. Members, but I understood that the manner of application could be the subject of debate in Committee. If that be so, perhaps you could amplify your ruling for me, if for no one else. The manuscript amendment that I should seek to put down relates to the manner of application of a particular sum which we must be presumed to have passed on Second Reading half an hour or so ago.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) will look at the page of "Erskine May" to which I have just referred, and then turn the page, he will discover that it says on the next page: debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation".

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I wish to raise a different point of order. The Bill says on page 2: In addition to the said sums granted out of the Consolidated Fund, there may be applied out of any money directed, under section 2 of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891, to be applied as appropriations in aid of the grants for the services and purposes specified in Schedule (B)". The Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 clearly is highly relevant to the debate that we may have on Schedule (B). However, I am afraid that I have to tell you that copies of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 are not available in the Vote Office. It will be within your memory that it is only two days since we had trouble of this kind before. In view of that, I should have thought that the Government might have learnt their lesson and placed copies of the relevant papers in the Vote Office.

With my usual diligence, I slipped back home and, after consulting my volumes of the statutes, I have obtained a photocopy of the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891. I am prepared to make it available to you so that it may be photocopied and distributed to hon. Members, if that will get the Government out of the difficulty into which they have again got themselves.

It may be, however, that that would be out of order, and I do not wish to suggest anything which is out of order. Might it not be better to adjourn the Committee stage until the Government have made available copies of the necessary parent legislation, which is the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891, which should be freely available to hon. Members if they are to enter into debate on the Bill?

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) will be aware from recent experience that this is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members must provide their own documents or the Government must make them available.

Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

Further to that narrow point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Although I realise that the Chair has no power in these matters, did not Mr. Speaker say clearly in the early hours of Wednesday morning that the Chair had power to influence and to guide the Government? The fact that it took the Government two hours to accept Mr. Speaker's influence, guidance and advice surely does not prevent your acting in a similar manner—acknowledging that you do not possess the power to command the Government to provide Back Benchers with the documents that they need properly to discuss the Committee stage of this Bill, but giving the Government the same advice.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The distinction between the precedent which the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) is quoting now and the position in which we find ourselves today is that the document to which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury drew my attention is a published document. Therefore, it is available if hon. Members take the trouble to find it.

Mr. David Hunt (Wirral)

Further to the points of order which have been raised, Mr. Godman Irvine. I should like to obtain your assurance that the debate on this Committee stage can run with the full and free rein which was allowed by the Chair on the two occasions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred—on 16th February 1971 and on 2Gth February 1961.

Some hon. Members have sought to throw doubt on the motives of the Opposition in raising these matters, but is it not a fact that we feel very strongly about the Government's attempt to put through a clause which permits £22 billion of expenditure? Although we are not allowed to refer to that fact on the principle of appropriation, is it not possible to demonstrate how much the Government have railroaded through legislation, have ignored the Opposition, have ignored the country, and at the moment are—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are discussing Clause 1. The principle of appropriation arises under Clause 2. It may be that what the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) wants to say will be more relevant when we get to Clause 2.

Sir Bernard Braine

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am grateful to you for permitting me to raise what is a somewhat different point of order.

For the guidance of the Committee, you have quoted "Erskine May". Perhaps I may draw your attention to page 745, where it says: Debate and amendment on the stages of these bills"— Consolidated Fund Bills— must be relevant to each bill and must be confined to the conduct or action of those who receive or administer the grants specified in the bill. My original point concerned whether I could move an amendment at a later stage touching directly on this. To save the time of the Committee, perhaps I may point out the circumstances that I have in mind.

Last December, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Robert Megarry, in an impeccable judgment, castigated Her Majesty's Government for breaches of what was described as "the higher trust" towards the Banaban people on Ocean Island. The implication clearly was that the British Government had to make some financial provision. One would have assumed, therefore—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has omitted to turn over the page in "Erskine May". Having considered all the matters to which he has directed my attention, it says: On the clauses dealing with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed. That is, after having considered page 745.

Sir B. Braine

With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, if you will permit me to develop my point, you will realise that I am not talking about expenditure as such. I am talking about the conduct or action of those who receive or administer the grants.

That being so, I wish to refer to a specific case where it was reasonable for hon. Members to infer that provision would be made out of the sums voted by Parliament in order that our honourable obligations might be met. In fact, in May, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced that the compensation to be paid to the Banabans was to be paid out of moneys in the British Phosphate Commission's fund which properly belongs to the aggrieved people themselves. Therefore, it is essential for us to know whether the money in the British Phosphate Commission's fund, which in fact belongs to the very people who have been robbed over the years, has been passed into—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are coming back to the original example in "Erskine May" to which I asked the hon. Member for Essex, South-East to pay attention and which is to be found on page 746— subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. In an earlier ruling, you said that we could debate only expenditure which was to be spent "in a certain way". We understand your clear ruling that we must not ask for more money or for less money but that we may debate expenditure "in a certain way". My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has mentioned one example. There is also, for instance, the question whether in the Falkland Islands the money which the Government are spending should be spent on Royal Marines there who, apparently, have taken away a number of girls, or on Royal Engineers, who have not.

Then my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) quoted instances in 1961 and 1971 when the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill was debated. It will be within your know. ledge that in both years there were Conservative Governments in office. Surely it is not right that we should make one rule about debating the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill when a Conservative Government are in office and another when a Labour Government are in office.

I turn finally to what I consider to be the most serious of my points of order. It concerns what may be a case for abandoning the debate altogether. I have been studying the Bill and the Supply Estimates related to it. I refer to page 18 of the Bill, where Class VI, Vote 6, is under the following heading: For expenditure by the Welsh Office on roads and certain associated services including lorry areas, lighting and road safety, and on assistance to public surface transport". 11.30 a.m.

I now turn to the Supply Estimates 1977-78, to that identical reference, Class VI, Vote 6, page VI-39. Instead of referring to Welsh Office expenditure, it is headed "Civil Aviation Services", and it then says: being the ESTIMATE of the amount required in the year ending 31 March 1978 for the expenditure by the Department of Trade on civil aviation services including a grant in aid of the Civil Aviation Authority and international subscriptions. It seems to me that the two documents simply do not tie up. I have not had a chance to examine every single reference, but if there is one that is wrong, there may be others. We cannot proceed with a debate on a Bill the associated document attached to which bears a wholly different reference. There may be a serious error here, Mr. Godman Irvine, and when we are talking of the entire content of Government expenditure we need some assistance.

The Second Deputy Chairman

At the moment we are debating Clause 1. It may well be that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) may have a point which may be debated at some other stage in the Bill. I ask the House to proceed to the debate on Clause 1.

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I think that we have not started to debate Clause 1. We have been on points of order ever since the debate started. I think this is a new and important point of order. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is here, should not he reply to it, Mr. Godman Irvine, so that the House can be told whether the facts as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) render the Bill inoperable and out of order?

The Second Deputy Chairman

Would not the best procedure be to start with Clause 1? Then, when we come to the part about which the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is complaining, perhaps the Financial Secretary will then be able to deal with it. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I wish to address the Committee on the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cormack rose—

Mr. Bell

If my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has a point of order, may I resume after he has spoken?

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. May I direct your attention to page 747 of "Erskine May", the last sentence of the first paragraph, which begins with the words: If the bill is amended in Committee"? Obviously, if that statement is in "Erskine May", the Bill can be amended in Committee. I now refer to a few sentences higher up on the same page, 747, where it says that: amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation". It would assist the Committee materially, Mr. Godman Irvine, if you were able to give us a definition of the term "principle of appropriation". I have been consulting my colleagues during the proceedings of the past half hour, and many of us are in a quandary as to the exact interpretation. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who is such a notable exponent of parliamentary procedure, was not entirely clear in his mind as to what it meant. It would assist us if you would give us a definition—

Several Hon. Members rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The point of order may be relevant under Clause 2 but it is not relevant under Clause 1. I ask the Committee to consider Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. In 1888 the Chairman said: Clause 1 is a question that the Committee may either affirm or reject but it can do nothing else. That is what I am asking the Committee to do now.

The question, therefore, is, That the clause stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion—

Mr. Bell

I thought I already had the Floor. You had called me to speak, Mr. Godman Irvine, and I deferred to a point of order. May I respectfully suggest that perhaps I am in possession of the Floor of the Committee?

Mr. Gow

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I was under the impression that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) had risen on a point of order.

Mr. Bell

I rose earlier, Mr. Godman Irvine, to speak on the clause. You called me. I was then interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West on a point of order, and had to sit down. I would like to resume my speech as soon as I may. I had to give way to points of order.

Mr. Gow

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Did I correctly understand a moment ago that it was your ruling that we are not allowed to have the debate on the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill? [Interruption.] If that was not your ruling, may I address you on one of the references to which you drew my attention when I read out a passage from page 747 of "Erskine May"? You referred me to the Official Report of the Session 1962-63, at column 1481. On that occasion the occupant of the Chair was Sir William Anstruther-Gray, and a debate then took place on the question whether a clause in the Consolidated Fund Bill should stand part. Sir Spencer Summers, who was then addressing the House, received a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my noble Friend Lord Barber. I submit that this debate, from which I should like to quote in order to obtain a ruling from you, makes it perfectly clear that, provided we are debating the principle of appropriation, any debate and, indeed, any amendment is in order.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That would be relevant under Clause 2 but not under Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I should like to consider tabling manuscript amendments to Clause 2, and it would materially assist us if you would advise us what would be in order and what would not. I have noticed that on page 21 of the Bill, Schedule (B), Class X, 1, the last words refer to subscription to an international organisation in the context of expenditure by the Department of Education and Science". I should like to know to which international organisation it refers. I want also to know whether it is possible for me to table an amendment which can strictly limit the international organisations to which such subscriptions can be made. I am in a great quandary—as are my hon. Friends, many of whom would wish to support me—because I do not know whether I can table such an amendment, or whether you could accept it. If you could advise us accordingly, it would be of assistance and enable my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) to proceed with what will obviously be a speech of great interest and importance.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I am waiting anxiously to hear what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) will have to say. All I had said before was that on page 747 of "Erskine May" it says that debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriation". I have not said that there cannot be an amendment, but until I have seen an amendment I cannot give a ruling on whether it is in order. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Bell rose—

Mr. Mates

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am now confused and I seek your assistance. [Interruption.] I am only a simple soul. It seems to me that what you are indicating is that we as Back Benchers cannot table amendments in Committee to Clause 1, whereas it would appear from page 747 of "Erskine May" that consideration can be given to amendments. I am not clear why the Chair seems to be saying to us all along "No, you cannot table amendments, nor can you have discussion", whereas "Erskine May" says quite clearly, as I understand it, that Amendments cannot be moved to clauses or schedules to effect the omission or reduction of the amount of a grant"— that I understand— or of the appropriations in aid of it"— that I understand— or an alteration in the destination of a grant"— that I understand— or to appropriate to a particular service the sum issued by a Consolidated Fund Bill, not being an Appropriation Bill". I understand that too.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that subject to these restrictions it is perfectly in order for us to address the Committee on Clause 1 stand part, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has attempted to do, and as I shall do if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Godman Irvine. I also hope to move amendments that are not subject to these narrow restrictions. We seem to be being restricted by rulings of the Chair rather more than would seem the case from the specific examples that I have given. Subject to the subtitles (e), (f), (g), (h), (k) and (l), which are specific reasons, we should be free to table amendments to any part of the Bill at Committee stage and we should be free to discuss them, subject to remaining within the rules of order.

I appreciate that the rules of order are narrowly drawn for the purpose of keeping the debate strictly to the point but, subject to that, is there any reason why I should not table amendments to Clause 1, and is there any reason why we should not be free to discuss this matter openly, and if we feel strongly enough seek to test the opinion of the House?

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Since you are having to rule on a number of these points on the extent of the discussion, could I ask you to bear in mind that the precedent set today will of course be followed? Bad precedents are always more rigorously followed than good ones. There will come another August when our positions are reversed and this precedent will be followed. I have no doubt that the Opposition Front Bench will have put these points to their colleagues.

There are occasions when it is absolutely legitimate to use the weapon of time to prevent something from happening to which one is bitterly opposed. In those circumstances one is entitled to use it. On this occasion the matter at issue is the Consolidated Fund Bill—£23 billion to which the Opposition are not opposed and against which they will not vote—

Mr. Adley

How does the hon. Member know that?

Mr. Cunningham

Members of the Opposition Front Bench are nodding in agreement with me.

Mr. Adley

Never mind the Front Bench.

Mr. Cunningham

We all know that the Opposition would not vote against the Consolidated Fund Bill because they know the precedent that would create. On this occasion it is not a case of putting off some specific subject; it is a question whether the time of Parliament and hon. Members is being used up. God knows that the public does not have a very high opinion of this place anyhow. When one sees what is going on—the charade of wearing top hats and this sort of silliness—one cannot wonder at that.

We all want to stop particular things from time to time but no one is trying to stop the Consolidated Fund Bill, and we do ourselves, democracy and the dignity of Parliament no good at all by conducting ourselves excessively in this way. If we continue with this there will come a time when our positions are reversed and this bad precedent will be followed.

Mr. Cormack

Of all hon. Members in the House the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). who has indulged in so many charades this Session, blocking so many worthwhile Bills, is the last who should lecture us.

Mr. Tebbit

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Could you arrange for what was clearly an error in the Official Report to be put right? I think that the hon. Member far Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) meant to make that speech in 1971 when his hon. Friends, some of whom are now on the Front Bench, played exactly the same game.

11.45 a.m.

The Second Deputy Chairman

At least I am not responsible for what happened in 1971.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It would be appropriate if you could arrange for the amendment to be made to Hansard so that the hon. Member's speech could appear in the 1971 copy.

Mr. Cunningham

The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is absolutely right, and he proves my point that bad precedents are followed. For God's sake let us stop escalating this, and end all this nonsense, otherwise there will come a time when the rules will have to be changed and the legitimate use of the weapon of time will not be so readily available to hon. Members.

Certainly, I have abused—if the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) insists on putting it like that—this entitlement of hon. Members, but I have had a specific objective in mind which was, in the end, achieved. That is not the case here because no one wants to stop the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Adley

The hon. Member should speak for himself.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Is it not a fact that the Bill we are now discussing in Committee is subsequent to the resolution of the House on Supply which has already been agreed? Therefore, the question of the principle of the Bill is not at issue. For many years it has been a convention of the House that hon. Members wishing to raise particular points concerning expenditure or other matters should do so on Second Reading and arrangements have been made for large amounts of time to be allocated for that purpose. This convention has been accepted by both sides on the understanding that subsequent stages of the Bill should go through without debate.

Mr. Adley

No.

Mr. Spearing

This has been the custom for many years. Whatever may be proper in the rules of order is, nevertheless, against the customs and the traditions of the House.

The Second Deputy Chairman

On a resolution of the House as recently as 19th July hon. Members had the opportunity to make their observations. We are bound by that resolution and I have indicated today that any debate must be of very narrow scope.

Mr. Adley

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is being exceedingly unfair to Conservative hon. Members. We recognise that the Bill has had a Second Reading. We are now on Committee stage. Is the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggesting that we are not allowed to discuss what you, Mr. Godman Irvine, have already said we might discuss—namely, the details of expenditure in this Bill?,

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is exactly what I am asking the House to do, and I have asked the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield to assist me.

Mr. Mates

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. With respect, the points of order that I put to you about 10 minutes ago have not yet been answered.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member was reading from the page of "Erskine May" to which I referred. I have given a summary of what "Erskine May" has purported in the sentence that the hon. Member quoted. Nothing that I have said would inhibit him from doing anything on that today.

Mr. Bell

I still remember what I wanted to say when I caught your eye a considerable time ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I am setting a good precedent. I welcome the turn that events have taken and even the restrictive nature of the rules that control debate on the Committee stage of a Consolidated Fund Bill.

The rules derive from the fact that such Bills authorise payments out of the Exchequer and appropriation of particular sums to particular Votes in respect of matters that have been debated by the House in the preceding Session. The whole Bill is linked to Votes of Supply.

The reason that we turn Second Reading debates on Consolidated Fund Bills into general discussions of all the affairs of the nation and then authorise the payment of £22,000 million on the nod is that we assume that debates on the expenditures have taken place during the preceding Session.

I welcome this unexpected opportunity to talk about mechanics because, over the years, we have abandoned our con- trol over expenditure. Supply Votes have not been about expenditure. They have been used for general debates of general politics. All sorts of formal motions have been tabled, including moves to reduce a Minister's salary by £5. Sometimes the Supply Vote is moved formally and is followed by a debate on the Adjournment. Then on the last Supply Day of the Session, almost the whole lot is passed under a guillotine at 9.30 p.m. on the nod. By practice and the accumulation in "Erskine May" of progressively more restrictive rulings, we have abandoned all control over expenditure.

I wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) were here tonight—I apologise, it is now tomorrow.

Mr. Prior

My hon. and learned Friend is wrong. It is still yesterday.

Mr. Bell

Whatever the day, my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, takes a great interest in the way in which control over expenditure of the executive has been sliding away from the control of the House.

The Bill falls into two parts. Clause 1 is not actually appropriation. The Bill is a strange chameleon-like instrument. It starts life as a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and ends up as the Appropriation Act. The reason is that Clause 1 does not appropriate. Although there is a ruling that, in Commitee, one must talk about the principle of appropriation, Clause 1 is not about appropriation. It is the key resolution of the House. It becomes an Act of Parliament authorising payment of £22,000 million out of the Consolidated Fund. The provision has always been entitled: Grant out of Consolidated Fund", but the House has never been willing to take the Bill except at the end of a Session —a question of redressing grievances before voting Supply.

In a way, ordering Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill is the most significant thing that we do because we are unlocking the Exchequer. If we do not order the clause to stand part, all the Supply Votes of the previous Session are of no effect and no money can be paid in satisfaction of them. Any money that has been paid must be clawed back. The clause is of immense constitutional importance and used to be recognised as such. This is the first time that we have had a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on the mechanics of the control of public expenditure.

Mr. George Cunningham

It is not.

Mr. Bell

I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman is right. This is something to which we should turn our minds.

Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)

I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman is interested in the mechanics, but would he confirm that if there were a concerted effort—which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) says there is not—and the Bill were defeated, certain people, including doctors, National Health Service nurses, old-age pensioners and those on legal aid would not receive any money?

Mr. Bell

I go further. Government Whips and hon. Members would not be paid. The hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what I have been regretting. He is turning the debate away from the control of expenditure towards the merits of particular expenditures. We never go through the Estimates. We have general debating society type debates on matters that the day throws up and when we come to the final act of unlocking the Exchequer we spend the whole night on general subjects, all of which are important, and an hour on points of order which have nothing to do with control of expenditure.

Mr. George Cunningham

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I promise him and my hon. Friends that I shall not intervene again. The 29 Supply Days that have been given to the Opposition for many decades and on which they choose the subjects for discussion, could and should be used for the expenditure control purposes for which they were originally intended. It is the Opposition's decision to use Supply Days to table Adjournment motions that are wholly ineffective in relation to controlling expenditure. However, it is a deci- sion of the Opposition and has nothing to do with procedure.

Mr. Bell rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. That intervention does not arise under Clause 1.

Mr. Bell

The reproach that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) addressed to the present Opposition applies to all Oppositions for a long time past.

I shall address the House for only another two minutes. I am grateful to have been able to seize the opportunity to make some points that needed to be made. We cannot go on taking the Consolidated Fund Bill formally if we are not going to use Supply Day debates, at least in part, for the purposes for which they were intended.

No one could accuse me of having precipitated a General Election by making these points, though I must add that I would not mind if I had done so.

12 noon.

Mr. Cormack

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has performed a signal service to the Committee in raising the points that he has raised. I do not want to make a long speech, but I reinforce what he said. Both he and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) are at one, and I hope that there are more of us who are at one, on the issue that this debating Chamber, which ought with great care and continual scrutiny to look at these enormous sums of money which we are voting, does not do so. Instead, it debates generalities. I think that that is why Parliament is perhaps not held in as high esteem as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and I would wish.

I do not think that it is a question of points of order and things of that nature. In a strange sort of way, people understand them. Although I criticised the hon. Gentleman because I thought it appropriate to do so, people understand why he used the procedure of the House in the way he did earlier in this Session. People will understand why we were using the procedure of the House, quite properly, as we did in the earlier part of the debate on this Bill.

My hon. and learned Friend has highlighted a parliamentary deficiency of the highest order. Here in Clause 1—I want to keep myself totally in order—we have this enormous, unimaginable sum, so far as the general public are concerned—£22 million plus. It is a sum beyond the comprehension of any Member of this Committee, let alone any of our constituents. It is our constituents' money, the nation's money, that we are talking about.

I am glad to see that I have the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) in this, because I know that he is a man of considerable acumen who takes a very great and legitimate concern in the way in which the public's money is spent.

We are now at the end of a long, fairly gruelling and sometimes rather stupid Session, in which we have devoted an enormous length of time to debating things that do not matter. Here on the very last day, we find ourselves in this extraordinary position of being suddenly confronted with this sum of money in a way that we cannot question, and we cannot amend it.

Mr. Spearing

Is the hon. Gentleman not misleading the Committee and those who may be listening to him or may read what he is saying? On the Second Reading of this Bill it was open to any Member of the House to make at least a request to deal with great particularities. Even many of the Supply Days to which he refers are dealing with particular points and not the generalities that he mentioned earlier.

Mr. Cormack

If the hon. Gentleman likes, I will make a general confession, and a mea culpa, because we have not done the things that we ought to have done. What we should have done, on each and every occasion when it was appropriate, was to have questioned—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying beyond the bounds of Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack

I hope that I am not, Mr. Godman Irvine, because I am trying to relate my remarks exclusively and absolutely to the sum of money in Clause 1—£22,730,155,000. Everything that am saying is related to that.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Clause 1 authorises a payment out of the Consolidated Fund in satisfaction of the Votes. Would it not be a legitimate argument for an hon. Member—it was not one that I advanced —to say that he does not wish to authorise the payment out because in his view the expenditures were not sufficiently considered?

The Second Deputy Chairman

What the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) must address himself to is whether he accepts or rejects Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack

I reluctantly accept it, Mr. Godman Irvine, and I was not one of the 21 who objected to the Second Reading of this Bill, because I thought it was irresponsible so to do. But I believe that on this occasion, as we are having this debate, it is appropriate to refer, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has done, and as my hon. and learned Friend has done, to the way in which we have allowed parliamentary control over these sums to slip away and be taken from us while we concentrate on generalities.

I am suggesting that in the new Session of Parliament, when we come back in the autumn and begin to address ourselves to these matters, we ought to relate Supply to Supply. We ought to debate these sums of money and discuss them.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I hope that we shall not debate Clause 1 when we come back.

Mr. Cormack

I trust that we shall not. If I have anything to do with it, we shall certainly not.

I do not intend to speak for very much longer. With great respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, I suggest that my remarks are entirely relevant. I suggest that what we have done is to allow things to happen which should not have happened. I hope that we shall benefit from our sins in the new Session.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I thought that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), who has now left the Chamber, had a great deal of substance. In keeping with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that the hon. Member would acknowledge that. The hon. Member has mentioned the vast sum, which mystifies everybody. We know that. But anything within that expenditure could be debated in this Chamber. That is what it is all about. If there is any aspect that has not been debated, it is because some hon. Member has not selected it. But the opportunity has been there.

Mr. Mates

No.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Perhaps I may ask the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West to confine his remarks to Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack

Indeed, Mr. Godman Irvine I am confining myself to the sum of £22,730,155,000, and it was in the context of that sum that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) made an entirely apposite intervention, and I agree with him. What I am trying to do —I hope that I have the hon. Gentleman's approbation and support—is to say that collectively we have allowed the control that is properly ours to slip away from us because we have not debated Supply in the way we should have done.

Mr. Mates

Is my hon. Friend aware that the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) are simply not true? There are those of us in the Chamber who have sought the opportunity to raise detailed votes and clauses throughout the night. We have been denied that right by a Government seeking to pack up and go home. As we have been denied that right—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member is nowhere near Clause 1.

Mr. Cormack

I understand what my hon. Friend was getting at, but that was really like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Whatever we had said during the night, and whether or not the closure had been moved, we could not have altered this sum by a jot or tittle. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, the hon. Member for Ealing, North and myself are united. It is a most extraordinary coalition, but we are united in saying that this sum, the British people's money, has not been debated in this Parliament. It is too late. But it is not too late to point a moral and adorn the tale.

With that I draw my remarks to a close. I hope that in the coming Session we shall all come back suitably chastened, determined to ensure that in a year's time we do not debate £25,000 million when it is too late to have any control over its expenditure.

Mr. Tebbit

If one looks back at how these debates have run in the past, when they have run, one finds that there has been a common theme running through them. This is a common theme which is at present disavowed by some hon. Members, and wrongly so. The common theme is that which has been mentioned by those of my hon. Friends who have spoken, although the matter has been put in many different ways. It is that on this clause we are dealing with very large sums of money—sums over which we no longer have control and over which it has been held that control has been loose and will be loose in terms of their disbursement.

The Executive of the day—on the last two occasions it was a Conservative Administration—sought to prevent discussion on the Bill through the use of traditional rules of the House. Opposition Members, on the contrary, sought to discuss it. On Clause 1 of the Bill—an exact parallel to what we are now doing—the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) in 1961 made a very witty and pertinent speech on the use of the word "may" in that clause. That word appears there now. The right hon. Gentleman was asking what "may" meant. It sounds unbearably trivial, and the Chair ruled that provided the right hon. Gentleman did not actually get to the question whether there should be a different word he was in order, but that if he actually got on to the substantive question whether there should be a different word he would be out of order.

The right hon. Gentleman was able to discuss in quite a light-hearted and, indeed, at times almost frivolous manner the various possible meanings of the word "may". I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman's example on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I hope that my hon. Friends will excuse me, but I am making a serious point. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with it rather well. I should not want my efforts to be compared with his, perhaps to the detriment of mine.

The point that I am making is a more general one. There is a current of opinion in the House that emerges, it seems, at intervals of six or seven years that the way in which we conduct this business is not as it should be. It emerges during a debate on the Committee stage of this Bill. I think that it is perfectly good and proper that it should. I believe that unless it is done periodically the precedents become stronger and stronger that it should not be done, and sooner or later, as someone has suggested, we shall find that the Consolidated Fund itself goes through on the nod. That is another of those tiny ways in which Parliament's control of expenditure would be eroded.

I relate a story that is pertinent to this. It happened between 1970 and 1974, when the Conservative Party was in Government. I was walking across the Lobby outside and I encountered a person whom one normally refers to as a Whip but who was actually a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury. It is Lords Commissioners of the Treasury who actually sign the bits of paper that allow the money to be disbursed through the Consolidated Fund in accordance with this clause.

The Whip said that he was a little dissatisfied with the way that things were, and I inquired why. He had a feeling that his status as a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury was not appropriately regarded by everyone. I asked him in what regard and he said "This morning, for example, I have just been asked to sign a scruffy, dirty bit of paper to authorise the payment on account out of the Consolidated Fund of the sum of £20 million".

That interested me. I was a relatively new Member and I did not know the way that these things worked. I inquired further. He said "Come to the office. If it is still there I shall show it to you." It was indeed a rather scruffy bit of paper—a sort of roneod pro forma affair. I looked at it and then almost turned away agreeing with him, and then I said "But my dear chap, you have actually signed for £200 million". He had literally signed that dirty, scruffy sheet of paper and had not looked at how many noughts there were on it. That was a result of the slackness that is developing on the part of the House of Commons with regard to the control of its expenditure.

12.15 p.m.

In his speech in 1961 Lord Diamond, as he now is, was much concerned, as was the late Mr. Gaitskell, with the inflationary effects on the economy of the sum of £43 million. There was considerable debate on it and it interested me when I was reading it, as one so often does, to see how the discussion went. Lord Diamond said: To issue nearly £43 million out of a fund which has not got it to issue is an undertaking which only the most irresponsible of Governments would attempt to put before the Committee. The Government are supposed to be the guardians of the national purse, and it is they who should be showing us steps in financial probity. But, far from that, they are suggesting that we in this Committee, who are giving this matter every possible consideration, should take the unusual step—no wonder it is referred to in Erskine May as abnormal—of issuing the sum of £43 million out of a fund which, on the statement of the Financial Secretary alone, has not got the money to be issued."—[Official Report, 20th February 1961; Vol. 635, c. 205.] I think that he was probably over-egging the thing. He was raising a point about £43 million. That was in 1961. We are now discussing the same sort of point, not about £43 million but about £22,730,155,000. It is quite an effort at this time of day—whether it is yesterday night or this morning is somewhat beside the point—to think quickly just what multiple that is. I think that it is 500 times as great. Therefore, I would have thought that it was 500 times more appropriate on this occasion that we should discuss the matter.

If Lord Diamond and Mr. Gaitskell thought that it was appropriate that it should be discussed in those days it seems to me that it is not inappropriate that it should be discussed now.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

Not only is it 500 times as great; it represents £500 per man, woman and child in this country. Since only one-third of the people, or rather less, are in work, it represents a burden of £1,500 on every working person in this country, whereas the burden was £1 to £3 in 1961.

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly correct point. I do not think that it is any less relevant than the remarks made by Lord Diamond and Mr. Gaitskell during that debate.

Sir Bernard Braine

My hon. Friend is making an unusual but characteristically constructive contribution to the debate. As it is unusual for a debate to take place on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill—there is no debate at all on Third Reading—I wonder whether my hon. Friend will agree that the time is ripe for an entirely new procedure to be adopted by the House in respect of Second Reading after what happened last night?

The Second Deputy Chairman

On some occasion that might he an interesting discussion, but not under Clause 1.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine—

The Second Deputy Chairman

It was not a point of order. It was an intervention.

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend is inviting me to go down a very interesting byway.

Sir Bernard Braine

I am asking my hon. Friend to be a reformer.

Mr. Tebbit

That is a very good byway to he taken down, but I prefer to stay on the more precise point of Clause 1.

On the occasion in 1961 an excellent precedent was set. My purpose is to see that that precedent is confirmed so that the House may use it on future occasions. It has rightly been said that this kind of occasion will arise again. The fact that this opportunity has been exploited only by Labour Oppositions is perhaps to the descredit of Conservative Oppositions. Certainly on that occasion on 20th February 1961 there was a debate on Clause 1 of the then Bill dealing with whether a sum of £43 million would be inflationary or deflationary.

It was not only Labour Members in Opposition at the time who took part in that debate. The matter was dealt with at some length in a reply by a Treasury spokesman. I shall not make a long speech on whether the figure of £200,000 million—or however many noughts that figure is supposed to have—is inflationary, deflationary or neutral, or whether it would attract the approval or disapproval of Dr. Witteveen. I doubt very much that I should have the skill to debate these matters against the knowledge and experience of Treasury spokesmen, and no doubt I should come off badly in comparison with a good many of my hon. Friends in such a debate. My purpose is solely to establish on Clause 1 of this Bill in Committee that it is appropriate for hon. Members to question whether the sum involved has an inflationary or deflationary effect or whether it is purely neutral, and to establish whether it continues to be the custom of this House that a Treasury spokesman will reply to the questions which have been put to him.

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine. I notice that the time when Cabinet meetings finish is fast approaching. Can you advise me whether the message was conveyed to the Prime Minister that we should like him to come to the House to make a statement on the important matter which appears in this morning's Press?

The Second Deputy Chairman:

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no control over Prime Ministers.

Mr. Prior

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I know that you have no control over that matter, but some of my hon. Friends are anxious, in view of what has happened, that the Prime Minister should make a statement. I gather that that is one reason among others why we are having this rather prolonged discussion in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It might be appropriate that a message should be conveyed to the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister to come to the House and make a statement on the important matter which appeared in this morning's Press. That might facilitate business.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I can imagine that few hon. Members are better qualified than the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate the niceties of the matter which has been addressed to me.

Mr. Mates

In the few remarks I wish to make on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", I hope, Mr Godman Irvine, that you will allow me to preface my remarks with a complete rebuttal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who suggested that we were trying to conduct a delaying exercise which the public outside will not understand.

I should be happy not to be taking part in this exercise if it were not for two matters. The first is that when we have a real matter of substance we should be allowed to question the Executive, and it is wrong to allow its members to run away from it. If they are seeking to run away from it. hon. Members have to see, by whatever means, to prevent that happening.

The second reason—and the reason why I am inclined to vote against Clause 1—is that generally we have not been able to discuss the implications of this sum of £22,730 million because the Govenment, deliberately, wilfully, and without any good constitutional reason, chose not to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he was on his feet making a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. The Government cut him off. I wanted to raise some questions on this large sum of money, not to seek to discuss or change the amount agreed to by the House some time back but to discuss in principle how that sum should have been expended.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are dealing with Clause 1, and if the hon. Gentleman examines that clause he will see that what he proposes would be completely out of order.

Mr. Mates,

That is one of the reasons why I sought your advice earlier, Mr. Godman Irvine, by raising points of order. I believe I am right in saying that you established that one is allowed to discuss the principle of the spending of that sum of money but not the detail and not to propose any change in that sum.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have tried to indicate to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee on a number of occasions that that point might arise on Clause 2 but not on Clause 1.

Mr. Mates

I am in a further difficulty, because I am being asked to cast my vote in favour of Clause 1. If I do so, I am saying that the Treasury may—whatever that word may mean—issue this sum of money which we can go on to discuss in part. But I am not prepared "on the nod" to say when the Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was on 19th July, but the House decided the issue on that occasion.

Mr. Mates

Yes, that is right. Nevertheless, we now have an opportunity, since we are in Committee, to discuss the principle.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

The hon. Gentleman does not understand.

Mr. Mates

Who does not?

Mr. Clinton Davis

You do not.

Mr. Mates

I am coming very close to understanding the situation. That is why I am having this exchange of views with the Chair so that I can be brought to understand it.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

You will have a job.

Mr. Mates

I want to make a serious and important point.

The Second Deputy Chairman

What the hon. Gentleman is entitled to do is to affirm or deny that he now wants to support what the House decided to do on 19th July.

Mr. Mates

I am inclined to deny that, and I am trying to explain why. I do not think it is right that one should simply troop into the Lobby to register a vote without having a chance to say why.

Mr. Joseph Harper (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household)

That is nonsense. You have had 29 days and all night to say your piece.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman will realise that observations from a seated position are not in order.

Mr. Harper

I am doing that because am not able to stand.

Mr. Mates

I take it that one of the Whips is seeking to address me from a seated position.

Mr. Ronald Brown

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on his course of action.

Mr. Mates

There is yet another hon. Member making remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Ronald Brown

The hon. Gentleman was making comments earlier from a sedentary position too.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It makes no difference from what parts of the House sedentary interventions come: they are not encouraged by the Chair.

Mr. Mates

The remedy is in the hon. Gentleman's own hands. He was not in the Chamber when I explained these matters earlier.

Mr. Ronald Brown

I was here long before the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Is it possible for you to restrain the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) so that we can at least hear what my hon. Friend is trying to say?

Mr. Ronald Brown

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has been missing all night and for most of the morning. We are delighted to have him with us.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It will be easy to restore the normal calm of the House and restrain hon. Gentlemen from intervening. I would remind the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) that earlier this morning a Government Whip was able to persuade him not to speak in the debate.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We were not debating Clause 1 then, as far as I can recall. I encourage the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) to address himself to Clause 1.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Mates

I am only sorry that I have been so frequently and rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who alleges that I was not here earlier. That is not true. I have been sitting in the Chamber since 6.30 this morning and I shall continue to sit here if necessary. Back Bench Members have no other way of making protests than to try to speak on the various clauses and to find a way of making a perfectly legitimate protest, contrary to what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said earlier. We have serious points that we wish to make and to bring before the House. At the moment, I cannot see my way to voting in favour of allowing Clause 1 to stand part of the Bill, because the principle under which these sums are to be issued does not allow us to say "Wait a minute. The principle of such and such is wrong."

Mr. Cormack

I trust that my hon. Friend would not push his opposition to the extent of voting against the clause if the Prime Minister were to come here to address the House on a far more important matter.

Mr. Mates

If the Prime Minister were to appear here, it might make a great deal of difference.

Mr. George Cunningham

This is surely a deadly serious matter. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates), with his past career in the House, should recognise more than most hon. Members that the Prime Minister would never stand at the Dispatch Box and make a statement of any great substance about the security services or the secret services, and it is grossly irresponsible of the hon. Member—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order.

Mr. Cunningham

This is very serious. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not do that.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The Prime Minister is certainly not coming to make a statement on Clause 1. The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) has the opportunity to do so now.

Mr. Mates

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that if the Prime Minister was minded to address the House a way could rapidly be found within the rules to allow him to do so.

The Second Deputy Chairman:

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little from Clause 1. I must ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Mates

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury keeps tempting me to reply to him. I must try to resist that temptation. I am not trying to be irresponsible. Some astonishing remarks have appeared in the Press, and the general public and the Press will want to know about this matter from the source—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I call the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).

Mr. Tebbit

Since I made my earlier remarks I have been very impressed by the short contribution to the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Although what he said was a point of order, I think that it was angled to the debate and was extremely important.

It is clear to me that if we were to remove Clause 1 from the Bill the most serious consequences would ensue. These consequences have been discussed before, for example, in 1961 when on 20th February the then Mr. Diamond, who, I understand, was speaking on behalf of the official Opposition about the general practice in regard to the way in which the Bill was conducted, stated: We should not adopt this practice, I suggest. It may have been adopted hitherto, but it is to the credit of this Opposition that they have discovered an error and weakness in the practice previously adopted by Parliament in conducting its financial affairs. He was dealing with general matters but also with a possibly unfair accusation that had been made that, if the then Opposition voted against Clause 1 of the Bill, or attempted to delay it, it would be held that they were delaying payment to various good people—a similar point has been made this morning—and that in particular they would have been delaying the implementation of the Pilkington Report. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) referred to this in 1961 and asked Mr. Diamond: Do I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to oppose this Clause entirely on financial considerations, but that this has nothing to do with expenditure because we are not allowed to discuss expenditure? Therefore, when we oppose the Clause, it will be interpreted not as opposition to the Pilkington Report but to the Government machinery giving effect to that Report? Mr. Diamond replied: I had previously assumed that I was not, perhaps, speaking with sufficient clarity. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. There is nothing in the Clause or in what we may do tonight when we come to vote to relate it, otherwise than by assumption, to the Pilkington Report or to the remuneration of doctors. We have been told by the Chair on many occasions that we are not discussing expenditure and we are not entitled to do so. It is clear that if we took that step and voted against this clause—as Mr. Diamond so elegantly explained to his hon. Friend on that occasion—it should not be taken that we are necessarily against the expenditure of any of the particular matters to which the Fund relates. I shall not go into those other matters or those services, because that would clearly be out of order. They have been discussed already, or should have been. They would have been discussed to a much greater extent had the Government not curtailed the discussion.

One of the effects that would follow from the removal of Clause 1—or, even more, rejection by the House of the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill—would be that all Government services would be starved of money at once, as would a number of other people. This is a matter that we should consider most deeply. Each of us must decide what attitude we should take to voting on Clause 1 and consider the effect of removing this clause and refusing to sanction the expenditure of £22,000 million.

I notice, fascinatingly enough, that this round figure has three noughts at the end of it, very neatly, whereas when we get to Clause 2 we find that there is an odd 47p at the end. It is a cause of some amusement that the accountancy of all Governments is such that on occasions they can get to an accuracy of within 47p while in other instances it is rounded down to three noughts. One sometimes wonders whether the printer had added on an extra three noughts and no one had noticed.

If we decide that the clause should be enacted, we have to consider the serious consequences. The Government would be left without funds. I understand that it is possible that for a short time the Government could use the Civil Contingency Fund. That matter was discussed in the previous debates. I find myself in the same position as those who took part in those debates, since I am not clear to what extent there are moneys in the Civil Contingency Fund that could be used temporarily to cover expenditure that would otherwise be authorised out of the Consolidated Fund. Perhaps the consequences would not be as drastic as one imagines initially.

It is traditional that this Bill is presented after the Government decide on the date of the Summer Recess. The recess date governs the date on which the Bill is presented. If the Government had had a legislative mishap which could be repaired by extending the Session for a week or so, that would have been done and the Bill would have been discussed in a fortnight's time. If we did not pass the Bill, therefore, we should be no worse off than if the Session had been so extended.

There is a distinction between not passing a Bill and defeating it. If the Government had said that they were taking the Bill away for further consideration, as the Conservative Government did in 1961, to present it later, no harm would have been done. Nothing would have happened to ruffle the even tenor of our financial affairs. The Whips, the doctors, even yourself, Mr. Godman Irvine, and the Clerks of the House would be paid.

The danger would lie in rejecting the Bill. The Government could not then make payments in anticipation of the Bill and they would face a serious crisis. I am not sure to what extent the Civil Contingency Fund could be used to plug the gap in the intervening period. I should like to hear about that from the Financial Secretary before we decide how we shall vote.

If we defeated the Bill, which in effect is what rejection of Clause 1 would amount to, that would be sufficiently serious to precipitate a General Election. That is certainly the sort of circumstance in which the Prime Minister would state to the House the intentions of his Government. Might we suddenly find that old-age pensioners could not cash their pensions in the period leading up to the election after the Bill had been defeated? Would it be possible for the House to prorogue and then to reassemble so that by agreement between the parties action could be taken to remedy the situation? There is a great deal of agreement between the parties. There is the Lib-Lab pact. I am only sorry that there is not a Lib-Lab pact so that the members of that party voted the same in the House of Lords as they do in this House. If agreement could be reached, would it be possible to introduce a truncated emergency Consolidated Fund Bill to be brought forward in the new Session of Parliament as the sole item of legislation to assure the Government sufficient funds to carry on until the new Administration took over?

Some Labour Members seem to regard this debate as facetious, but we now see how serious it is. The Government have difficulty in getting their Members to support them. The difficulty arises sometimes over doctrinal differences. I do not know whether those differences would manifest themselves on this Bill. We know, however, that there are what are broadly called logistical difficulties. We can assume that Labour Members would vote in a particular way if they were here, but they might not be able to get here.

12.45 p.m.

It is reasonable to suppose, and it is a consummation which is in the minds of Ministers, that if the clause were pressed to a vote, the Government might not carry it. They would then be unable to reintroduce the Bill and, since it is a financial measure, they would be unable to put the matter right in the other place. Since the Government were unable earlier to muster the necessary support to carry a motion, their ability to carry the clause must be in doubt. That fact must affect our judgment in deciding how to vote on it.

Some of my hon. Friends, and almost certainly the nationalist Members, might feel inclined to vote against the clause to show their general disapproval of the Government's policies. If they did that they might secure a majority. Clause 1 would then be out of the Bill and the Government would not have the authority to pay out £22,713,155,000. I imagine that if that happened the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be informed. Perhaps someone would tell the Chief Whip the location of the silver-plated pistol with the single shot—

Mr. Michael Ward (Peterborough)

Like the one you gave to Mr. Cordle?

Mr. Tebbit

—so that he could do the decent thing. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps tempting me to stray beyond the confines of the debate. It is no dishonour for a party to be able to manage its affairs efficiently.

Mr. Robin Corbett (Hemel Hempstead)

Professional slaughter.

Mr. Tebbit

If there were to be any slaughter, I would rather it were not done in the incompetent and blundering way that the Leader of the House sought to do it.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. There is nothing about slaughter in Clause 1.

Mr. Tebbit

I know. If we excised Clause 1, there would be a slaughter of a sort which has not been seen in a General Election for many years.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

On a point of order, Mr. Godman if one looks at Clause 1 it will be seen that there is a total of £22,730 million. Included in that is part of the Vote for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has control of slaughterhouses.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member has made a very ingenious point. I think he will find, however, that this subject comes under Clause 2.

Mr. Tebbit

My hon. Friend is right, and you, Mr. Godman Irvine, are right to draw attention to the fact that we cannot discuss whether this money should be used for slaughterhouses. We can discuss only whether it should be made available to the Treasury. We cannot even discuss whether the Treasury can spend it, because the word "may" comes back into that. The Treasury does not have to spend the money it is given permissive powers to do so.

If I may make a passing reference to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), it would be possible for the Treasury to decide that it would not spend money on slaughterhouses, but it would be grossly improper for us now to discuss whether it should do so. This is another of the curious anomalies in our rules of order.

Returning to my main point, there are a number of possibilities, which I have enumerated, which might happen in the event of certain circumstances which at the moment are hypothetical. They are hypothetical at the moment because we have not yet voted on the clause. That does not mean that we should not discuss such a question, because we have to take account of all the circumstances that would flow from our actions according to the way we vote.

One of the most agreeable consequences—whatever anyone else thinks about it—if this clause were to he defeated, if I were able to persuade hon. Members to vote against it, would be that the Government would be placed in a position whereby the Prime Minister would have to come to the House. Were that to happen there is little doubt that the strict rules of order under which we are discussing this clause, being careful not to stray over the line in any way, would no longer apply to the Prime Minister's statement.

We have, therefore, more to consider in casting our votes than the narrow issue of this Bill. It may not be proper for us to go far away from the Bill in our discussions, but any hon. Member who cast his vote without taking full consideration of these consequences would be irresponsible indeed. It may not have occurred to every hon. Member that once the Prime Minister was htere—and that would almost inevitably follow if the clause was defeated, although I am not sure whether he would have authority to use the petrol in his motor car to get here—once he was at the Dispatch Box his statement would flow over into a number of other matters.

It may be that some hon. Members would like to have the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today so that what he said could flow over into other matters —which I shall certainly not discuss. I shall not discuss the content of what the Prime Minister might say. Various hon. Members will have thoughts at the back of their minds and they may have discussed outside the Chamber with their colleagues when deciding which way to vote the sort of things they would like to hear. Other hon. Members might feel that it would be a bad thing if the clause were defeated and the Prime Minister had to come to the Dispatch Box and be questioned in a way which might allow his statement to flow into other matters.

For example, we might find when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies that he will explain—as my noble Friend Lord Boyle, then Sir Edward Boyle, explained in the debate in 1961 —the Bill's inflationary-deflationary effects on the economy. He might go into the matters which were raised then about whether there was, in the words of the then Mr. Diamond, any slack in the economy which ought to be taken up by the use of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund. There was also the question whether the economy was in an inflationary condition. The argument put by Mr. Diamond and Mr. Gaitskell was that it was possible that it might be a good thing if the funds were not extended.

The best explanation of that is in Mr. Diamond's speech in 1961, during proceedings on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill when Clause 1 was being discussed. In a lengthy speech, a good speech well worth reading, Mr. Diamond said: I am referring to the inflationary effect of passing Clause 1 and of issuing a sum of no less than nearly £43 million from the Consolidated Fund. … I do not think that I need underline at length, but one should shortly underline, the reasons why I say that this has an inflationary effect. Mr. Diamond, as he then was, Lord Diamond as he is now, is no slouch in economic matters. That is for certain. He was saying then that he had no doubt that the issue of £43 million from the Consolidated Fund would have an inflationary effect. Today we are talking about £22,000 million, so there is at least a presumption that that might have an inflationary effect, if Lord Diamond was right in those days. He was rightly regarded by many of his colleagues who are now members of the Government, as a good economist. Lord Diamond went on: No one can maintain that the country is now in a deflationary situation. If we were in a deflationary situation, the one thing needed would be to inflate or, as the economists say, reflate the economy. It is not argued on either side of the Committee that that is the case. Far from that, it is admitted on both sides, and particularly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who has made many speeches inside and outside the House of Commons saying that he is not entitled to take steps which would lead to an increase of inflationary pressure. How almost exactly parallel the situation is now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like the Chancellor in 1961, has been making many speeches inside and outside this House saying that he is not entitled to take steps which could lead to an increase in inflationary pressure. We would agree that Lord Diamond's analysis of the country's affairs then applies to them now. We are not in a deflationary situation. Mr. Gaitskell intervened in the debate at the point I have just quoted to observe: My hon. Friend will surely agree that there is a great deal of slack in the economy at the moment."—[Official Report. 20th February 1961; Vol. 635, c. 203–7.] I do not know precisely how that slack was being measured by Mr. Gaitskell. I would have imagined that one of the things he would have had particularly in mind would have been the unemployment figures.

1.0 p.m.

If they implied slack in those days, they must certainly imply it these days with the unemployment figures that we now have. So we now have to give consideration in all these matters to the effect upon demand and upon slack in the economy, and to the possible effect on the level of unemployment, in relation to the sums of money we are now being asked to authorise to be paid from the Consolidated Fund.

Things are very different now in one respect. In February 1961, when these matters were being discussed—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had a very good run round the history of this matter, and perhaps the time has come when he can confine himself to the present situation and whether he is voting in favour of or against Clause 1.)

Mr. Tebbit

Indeed, Mr. Godman Irvine. The danger in this matter, as you will readily perceive—I shall not go back into it deeply—is that in the past there has been some suggestion that one cannot go into such issues at all. What I have established again—and I think that I have helped the Chair to help me to establish it by these references—is that one can discuss these matters. Having now perhaps discussed these matters—

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown)

Exhaustively.

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman says "exhaustively", but I would say that I have discussed these matters of 1961 reasonably thoroughly and have established that we can discuss the economy in its broad terms in relation to the amount of slack and inflationary and deflationary factors, so I shall discard the official record of 1961 in the knowledge that any hon. Member can get involved in debate on the general economy now, as he could then.

We come to the state of the economy now. Let us first deal with the matter of slack in the economy, a matter which is relevant, which was considered before and which you, Mr. Godman Irvine, have rightly enjoined me should rightly be considered in the context of events as they are and not as they were 16 years ago.

The first indicator to supply us with a measure of slackness in the economy would be broadly regarded by most people as the level of unemployment. There is a record number of people unemployed—more than we have had since the 1930s—as we jog hack to 1931 in Government policy. The second indicator of the amount of slack in the economy is the amount of money available for credit in the banks. I do not know, Mr. Godman Irvine, whether you have had the experience recently of going to the bank perhaps for a loan, but some hon. Members have. If one does that, one finds that the banks are very ready to lend money. That is a sure sign that there is ample liquidity in the economy and of the nature of the indicators, suggesting that the economy is in a very slack state.

Yet another indicator that we might consider is the indices of production. I do not normally carry the indices of pro- duction around with me in my pocket, but no doubt some hon. Members do. It is, however, my clear recollection—if am wrong, I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will put me right—that in general terms the indices of production are at about the level they were during the three-day week in 1974 and considerably above the peak levels reached in the earlier part of the 1970s.

We therefore have the three most obvious indicators of the level of economic activity in the country all pointing in one direction. We have the availability of credit from the banks, the availability of labour measured through the unemployment statistics, with unemployment increasing as the number of jobs available is on the decrease, and the indices of production. Unfortunately, in a rather more narrow context, if we look at the thing from the purely monetarist point of view, the indicators are pointing in a somewhat different direction.

These latter indicators suggest—contrary to the first three indicators I have mentioned, which also related to 1961, if 1 may mention the date again—to most economists that the country is in a deflationary situation, and the traditional attitude would have been to boost the economy by the release of more funds into it. But, of course, we are now in a much more difficult situation than 1961. It is complicated by the fact that, although there appears to be a deep recession, normally associated with deflationary forces, inflationary forces are still gaining in strength.

The arcane mysteries of Ml and M3 and the relationship of domestic credit expansion figures to those forces are a matter much more for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) than for me. Unfortunately, we have the contrary position in which, in contrast to the indicators of recession and of deflationary factors, the financial indicators still point to a highly inflationary situation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this in a most effective and serious manner on many occasions in the House recently. He has told us of his intention to reduce the level of inflation to something under 10 per cent. by the end of this year, next years, some time, never—or was it this year, last year or the year before that? Whatever his intentions, and I am sure they are very good, we have to face the fact that in the last three years we have been through a period in which inflation has accelerated and reached a peak of over 30 per cent. on an annual rate, and on a three-monthly rate has reached some horrendous figures.

We have, happily, improved our position considerably since then. Certainly, since the Government took the monetarist view—the IMF view—and, no doubt, read that famous letter from Dr. Witteveen, things have improved quite considerably. We now have inflation running at a level of a mere 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. on the annual rate, and there are hopes that it will come down later this year. There are hopes that we all share—I believe that they are substantially based—that from September-October onwards the rate of inflation will begin to ease.

However, it is generally accepted by a very large body of economists, though not by all of them, that despite this hopeful trend in the rate of inflation there are other matters which give rise to grave concern. The Government have managed so far to hold their monetary targets extremely well, and they deserve great credit for doing so. They have been under considerable pressure to allow a further expansion of money supply, either by increased borrowings or by that other vulgar expedient of the printing of money —of which more later, because that reminds me of another point that I intended to make, and which perhaps some of my hon. Friends intend to make, about the sort of money being authorised to be issued from the Consolidated Fund.

For example, would it be proper to authorise this money without inquiring further into how it came about that a very large number of banknotes issued recently were improperly printed? Some doubts have been raised as to their validity, not by official spokesmen or the banks but by people at large getting notes with the wrong serial numbers, the Queen's head on the reverse side, smudges and all these other matters; so much so that many people were quite delighted because they thought that they had acquired rarities and that the £1 note was worth £2 instead of the 50p to which we have become accustomed.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to go into great detail on any particular subject. Perhaps he could return to Clause 1.

Mr. Tebbit

I should not wish to go into particular detail about that, Mr. Godman Irvine, because I have not seen any of the notes and I do not know precisely what the defects were. However, in broad terms we can agree that they were defective and people hoped that they would be worth more than the usual banknotes which we have nowadays.

To return to the general proposition, the Chancellor and the Government deserve quite considerable praise for the way in which they have held on against the proposition that it would be right now to reflate the economy, in the face of the deflationary situation which I described earlier by reference to the three main indicators. I believe that it would be dangerous if they gave in to those pressures, and what worries us as we consider whether to allow the issue of this money out of the Consolidated Fund is whether the Government will so give in.

That is closely relevant to the clause because of the word "may", which, as the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) noted in the past, has great significance. I shall not go over the arguments in that debate, although I strongly recommend that you, Mr. Godman Irvine, and all hon. Members should find a little time later this weekend to read that debate. It is most instructive. I refer in that sense not merely to the way in which the balance of argument went back and forth on points of order and rulings from the Chair, interesting as they were—

Mr. Molloy

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. The hon. Gentleman has been sipping from a glass, and he tells us that there is water in it. Can you assure us that that is so, in view of his rambling and ridiculous speech?

Mr. Tebbit

The hon. Gentleman may have a sip if he likes. There are pressures upon the Government to reflate the economy, and the hon. Gentleman who has just intervened is one of them. On the other hand, it is conceivable that pressures to the contrary could arise. The world currency markets are under some strain. Happily, sterling is at present holding up extremely well, but, if the United States authorities were to take firm action to restore the standing of the dollar, that could bring further pressure back upon sterling.

In that event the Goverment might decide, terrible though the thought may be, that it would be better to screw the economy down a little more, to take what one might broadly regard as deflationary measures. The way in which the clause is drawn—it is not possible to amend it—makes it possible for them to do that, and we have to take that matter into account in deciding whether to support the clause.

That is, perhaps, a factor in favour of the clause. I am trying to be as fair as I can, looking for the factors on both sides of the question. I have alluded to some of them, such as the pressure upon many hon. Members in favour of defeating the clause because of the pleasure which we should have thereby of enjoying the Prime Minister's company again for a while.

The essential point here is that the words of the clause are that The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund". The word "may" being of great significance. If the clause had been drawn the other way, with the word "shall", we should have been discussing a different subject—or, rather, one which I could not discuss because, as I understand it, Mr. Godman Irvine, you would rule me out of order if I did. Therefore, although it is an interesting matter which hon. Members may bear in mind, it is not one about which I am allowed to speak at the moment.

1.15 p.m.

The word "may" leaves a discretion. Perhaps it was concluded that there were factors at large in the economy suggesting that the Treasury should not issue all these funds. It would be perfectly free to take that course, and rightly so, the argument being that it would be wrong for the House to bind the Government to spend in this way because one cannot know in advance all the circumstances which may arise. In some ways it might be impossible for the Government to comply with the sterner injunction of the other auxiliary verb. But, as I say, we have here a plus in that the Government could decide that deflationary measures were called for and that they should not spend all this money.

Before deciding on the clause, we wish to hear the Financial Secretary's view of the general state of the economy. It would be interesting to hear it, and it would be one of the matters taken into account by hon. Members on both sides in deciding whether they wanted to take action which could precipitate at least a serious political crisis, if not a General Election.

I feel that I must now draw my remarks to a conclusion. I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to enlarge upon the discussion we have had upon the economy thus far, and I ought to allow them the opportunity without intruding too far upon the afternoon, which, clearly, will be very enjoyable for hon. Members, just as our debates all through the night have been.

I ask the Financial Secretary to make as full and satisfactory a reply to the debate as was made in the past by Sir Edward Boyle, as he then was. In his reply, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to tell us—I shall give him a moment or two to see whether a message can be sent in time for him to find out authoritatively from the only person who can tell him, namely, the Prime Minister—whether, in the event of the House rejecting the clause, the Prime Minister would come here to tell us what the Government would do, or whether it would be the Chancellor—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have already given the hon. Gentleman an indication that the Prime Minister is not covered by Clause 1, and we are dealing only with Clause 1. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with some care. The clause which we have been discussing is one on which the hon. Gentleman cannot engage in a general discussion about the state of the economy.

Without in any way wishing to traverse the right of the Committee to discuss the clause within its proper scope, I consider that the range of matters which he is raising on the clause are not appropriate to this clause because, as I say, it deals only with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund.

I revert to the ruling to which I called attention earlier, which was given by the Chairman on 21st December 1888. The Committee may either affirm or reject, but it can do nothing else.

Mr. Tebbit

I hope that I have gone round it with very great care, and 1 am grateful to you, Mr. Godman Irvine, for confirming that I have not gone out of order on these matters. If I may say so, the position of the Prime Minister does arise on the clause because he is the First Lord of the Treasury, the man upon whose say-so at the end of the day these sums may be released from the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, if we should decide—this is the point of it—that he ought to have taken from him the right to issue these sums, it is inevitable that the right hon. Gentleman himself would come to tell us, in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury, what on earth he would do, having got no authority to take money out of the Consolidated Fund.

It is a matter which bears very serious consideration. It might be that the House of Commons would vote to allow money to go in but not to go out. We might do it the other way round. That is the more usual arrangement in this country. But, whichever it is, I commend to my hon. Friends that they should consider very deeply the pros and cons of voting to remove this clause from the Bill.

As I see it, one of the most important advantages of removing the clause, apart from the broadly economic ones which I know the Financial Secretary is eager to deal with, is that we would have the pleasure of a visit from the Prime Minister himself to tell us about all manner of matters in relation to Government expenditure, when perhaps, Mr. Godman Irvine, you would allow him to stray a little over the edge and tell us about expenditure on the de-bugging of public buildings, not least No. 10.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I think that I can indicate at once that that is a matter which I would not be prepared to accept.

Mr. Molloy

This clause is very important, and I am bound to say that, having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I had not realised how broadly one could debate these matters without an indication from the Chair that one was straying beyond the bounds of order. We shall all read the hon. Gentleman's speech with great care, because it seems that we have been provided with the most incredible licence.

I agree that it is the right of the Opposition to harass the Government, to embarrass the Government and even to make rude remarks about the Prime Minister. You, Mr. Godman Irvine, have permitted that in the debate on this clause. For that reason I am sure that you will allow me to reply to some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Chingford.

As I say, the Opposition have every right to try to embarrass the Government. That is their prerogative. What is more, I thought that at one stage the hon. Member for Chingford raised a very important matter. However, we all realise, if people outside do not, that the entire object of the exercise is not only to embarrass the Government but, as we have seen, to denigrate the entire nation and the people of this country. When some of the remarks of Opposition Members are read overseas, it will be wondered whether we are not just about finished. That pleases the Conservative mind—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) must either affirm or reject the clause. It seems to me that he is beginning on a doubtful note.

Mr. Molloy

I accept your ruling, Mr. Godman Irvine, and I turn straight away to that part of the clause dealing with defence excesses and defence supplementaries.

The Second Deputy Chairman

None of that will be in order under Clause 1.

Mr. Molloy

With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, I have been speaking for about two minutes, and you have risen three times. The hon. Member for Chingford spoke for nearly an hour, and you rose hardly at all. If the hon. Gentleman was in order in asking about the petrol in the Prime Minister's car, my submission is that the hon. Gentleman may be—

The Second Deputy Chairman

If the hon. Member for Ealing, North reads the Official Report, he will discover that that was not something that I allowed.

Mr. Molloy

I was sitting here and I heard it. The thought entered my mind that the same argument could affect all our Armed Forces—not that the Tories care very much about them when there is a Labour Government. They would not mind seeing this island defenceless—[Laughter.] Opposition Members laugh. They enjoy that. They know that it is true. Any excuse is good enough for them. If they can find an opportunity to attack the Government and to denigrate the British people, they will use it, because they think that they get political kudos out of it.

At the same time, what may come out of this debate is that Back Benchers who are unsuccessful in the Ballot will be permitted to raise matters during the Committee stage. However, I hope that it will be done sincerely, drawing attention to important matters, and that hon. Members will not indulge in a political exercise to attack the Government and to denigrate and undermine the status of the nation, which is what Opposition Members have been doing for the past few hours and, indeed, for most of the night.

Mr. Mates

I rise slowly and diffidently because it was my hope that the Financial Secretary would address a few words to us. I listened with great care to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He posed some fundamental questions.

Mr. Tebbit

Since my hon. Friend listened with great care to what I said, he will have noticed that it was said in no acrimonious spirit and that I gave considerable praise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he had handled the money question.

Mr. Mates

I was coming to that—[Interruption.] The departure of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will be regretted by no hon. Member on the Opposition Benches. We are trying to conduct this Committee stage in a friendly spirit. There have been no angry words spoken by either side.

I want to come back to the general matter which you, Mr. Godman Irvine, have ruled to be in order. It is at the heart of this whole Bill.

I do not know whether the Financial Secretary intends to intervene in this debate. If he were to give an indication to the Committee that he was prepared to answer some of our questions, I should draw my remarks instantly to a close.

We want to know the effect of passing Clause 1. I believe that my hon. Friends and I are entitled to know what will be the effect upon the economy if we do not allow it to stand part of the Bill, to say nothing of the effect upon the Government upon the way that Government business is conducted and, not least, upon those people who depend on the Government for their livelihood.

I am aware that we must not go into any detailed discussions, clause by clause and schedule by schedule. Were we to do so, it would mean that we were straying beyond the bounds of order and into the tenets of Clause 2. My hon. Friends and I will have some remarks to make to the Committee on Clause 2 if and when we come on that clause to the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

But the question now is of the essence of the whole debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is what the effect will be if we allow this sum of £22,730 milion to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, and then where it is to go. On where it is to go will depend, to a very large extent, the effect that it will have upon the state of inflation that we are suffering and the effect that it will have on—

Mr. Tebbit

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what is happening behind the Chair? The Prime Minister has now come to the House, and I have no doubt that he wishes to make a statement.

1.30 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (Finchley)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. May I seek your guidance? Has any request been received from the Government to make a statement on the matters which have previously been raised concerning allegations made against the security services? We think it vital that such a statement should be made before the Summer Recess, for the confidence and morale of the security services and because it would appear that there may, on the face of it, be some infringements of the Official Secrets Act. The Attorney-General may also wish to make a statement.

I should be grateful if hon. Members could know whether any such application has been received, because on the Conservative side we think it important that these most serious allegations should be replied to by a statement from the Government before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am not at all sure that it is a point of order, but that is for you, Mr. Godman Irvine. A great many matters are being written and spoken about at the present time, but there is very little hard fact, as far as I can see. If anyone who has any information about what has taken place cares to place it before the appropriate authority—who in this case would he the Home Secretary—then, of course, the matter will be looked into. As to the present situation, I am quite satisfied with the arrangements at No. 10 and with what is going on in the security services.

Mrs. Thatcher

Further to the point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am very happy that the Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in the security services. I believe that is what he has said. May I ask him, as head of the security services—

Mr. George Cunningham

We normally do not discuss these things.

Mrs. Thatcher

How much more important is it that a former Prime Minister should not discuss these things? May I therefore ask the Prime Minister—because it is important that we should know—whether it is a fact that a former Prime Minister gave an interview to journalists about matters affecting the security services?

The Prime Minister

With respect, it was primarily a point of order. It is quite clear that I cannot answer as to what interviews have been given by any hon. Member to anybody else. That is certainly not my responsibility. But I repeat that if anyone has any information that he cares to place before me or before the Home Secretary about the operation of the security services, the facts will be looked into. My responsibility is to make sure that these matters are now properly conducted. That I have done.

Mrs. Thatcher

Further to the point of order—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. At the moment the House is in Committee and it is discussing Clause 1 of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. At the moment it seems to me that we are straying a little out of order on that. If we are to have a general debate or discussion, or even a statement, we shall first have to dispose of Clause 1 and have an undertaking that the matter will be discussed on some other occasion.

Mrs. Thatcher

As it would appear that the Government are refusing to make any official statement on this matter, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I therefore take it that the Prime Minister is refusing to question the previous Prime Minister about whether he gave an interview to two journalists affecting the security services? If such an interview was given, will the Prime Minister kindly refer that matter to the Attorney-General?

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. If there is nothing further to be said, we are back on Clause 1, and only matters relevant to Clause 1 of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill can be discussed.

Mr. Mates rose—

Mr. Cormack

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Would it be in order for us to dispose very quickly of the Bill, which I am sure we should like to do? Then the Committee could end, the House could sit, and we would have the opportunity of hearing the Prime Minister again.

The Second Deputy Chairman

If it would be of any assistance, I think that the matter could be very quickly disposed of.

Mr. Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Am I correct in understanding you to say that this matter is not in order within Clause 1?

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have ruled on that already. I have no doubt that we could dispose of the Bill very quickly, if the Committee were so minded, but at the moment we are discussing Clause 1.

Mr. Mates

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. We seem to have strayed a little. You have been very strong in keeping me to order, but you did indicate—if I may put it to you before I sit down—that when we came to Clause 2 various matters could be specifically raised. One of them is the allotment of funds. I am simply asking your help so that we can correct the strange situation—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked my help on a number of occasions. I have done my best to help him. The best help that I can now give him is to advise him that we are dealing with Clause 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules (A) to (C) agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.