ISSUE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 1981

HC Deb 04 August 1980 vol 990 cc407-79

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

Mr. Christopher Price

It will not be outwith your memory, Mr. Weatherill, that either last year or the year before we instituted an innovation when debating the various clauses of the Consolidated Fund Bill—a useful innovation started by Conservative Members when they were in opposition. It would be wrong if important precedents of that nature, started by Conservative Members who are now Ministers of the Crown, were not carried on. It is only because of habit that discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill has fallen into desuetude.

I wish to encourage hon. Members to follow that tradition once more because it is an important tradition—

The Chairman

Order. The only speeches in order in this debate are those concerned with the question whether the clause be affirmed or rejected, and nothing else.

Mr. Price

Thank you for that intensely helpful intervention, Mr. Weathcrill. I should simply like to make a short speech because I know that a number of my colleagues are anxious to intervene. I do not want to detain the Committee for long in arguing that clause I should be rejected.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell the House what the clause actually says?

Mr. Price

I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) who takes such a close interest in these debates on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House if I were to read clause 1. I shall not detain the House with the preamble which begins Most Gracious Sovereign. We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects If I were to do so—

The Chairman

Order. That definitely would not be in order. We are discussing clause 1.

Mr. Price

If I were to do that, I would be out of order. Clause 1 is headed Grant out of the Consolidated Fund". It reads: The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 the sum of £41,601,455,200. That is our money.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

It is the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Price

It is the taxpayers' money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says. It is proper on these occasions to make out a case that this £ 41,000 million should not be spent and this clause should be rejected until hon. Members have heard a number of explanations from the Government about the way in which it is proposed to spend the money. This money refers to a wide number of headings—

The Chairman

Order. It is not in order to discuss how the money is to be spent. It is simply in order to discuss whether the clause is accepted or rejected. This is a very narrow debate. I warn the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who may seek to take part about that.

Mr. Price

I recall very well the hour and a debate on this narrow clause in a previous year. I shall try to stick simply to the argument that this £ 41,000 million should not be spent and, for that reason, the clause rejected.

Mr. Skinner

There is no question but that this is a lot of money. Even though this is a very narrow debate, it is nevertheless one hell of a lot of money. I am concerned about the way in which the money is being spent, even though it is only part of a narrow debate. I wonder whether it would help the Committee if my hon. Friend were to explain, as briefly as possible, some of the things on which this money is being spent. Has it anything to do with the money that is being wasted by the Minister for Social Security in appointing private investigators who have apparently discovered no loss or only losses of small amounts of money? Should that be part of our discussion?

The Chairman

I do not wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to be tempted to follow that line. It is definitely not in order.

Mr. Skinner

It is a lot of money.

Mr. Price

I agree, Mr. Weatherill, that if I were to follow my hon. Friend down that road I might stand in jeopardy of being called to order by your good self. It was, however, an interesting point and one that has enlightened the Committee a great deal. I am making a serious point. This Bill has come before us just before the Summer Recess, as it normally does. We have had a long debate on Second Reading and we now have to decide whether to accept or reject clause 1. Until we have had a series of explanations from the Treasury Bench about a number of economic matters, there is no way in which we can make up our minds properly as responsible Members whether it would be proper to accept the Clause—

10.45 am

The Chairman

Order. We had that long discussion throughout the night and it is not in order now to debate it again.

Mr. Price

rose—

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

On a point of order. We have not yet actually discussed this £41,000 million at any time—

The Chairman

Order. But that is what the Consolidated Fund debates are all about.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. May I seek your guidance about the Committee stage of this Bill? The Order Paper seems to have omitted any reference to the remaining stages being taken today. That has limited the tabling of amendments. Would you facilitate manuscript amendments so that they can be debated in the usual way in Committee?

The Chairman

I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he looks carefully at the Order Paper, he will see that it definitely states that remaining stages may also be taken. On his second point, it is not in order to move amendments in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Price

Thank you for your response to those points of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have said that this £41,601,455,200 has been adequately discussed on Second Reading.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)

This is the first that I have heard of it.

Mr. Price

I have not been here throughout the Second Reading debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) has. I understand from him that he has never even heard this figure mentioned.

Whether it has been done by tradition or not in the past, having discussed the principle of the Bill on Second Reading—on a wide range of issues, I may say—in Committee, which no one wants to delay—

Mr. Skinner

It has just crossed my mind that the Second Reading of a major Bill such as the Consolidated Fund Bill is normally debated for at least a day. This Bill is about a tremendous amount of money. The figure of £41,000 million is a lot of cash in anyone's terms. What worries me is that there is normally a gap of several days after Second Reading so that one can read Hansard and take account of what was said on Second Reading. I do not know why, but that is the way that this daft system works here. Now we have this debate on this tremendous pile of money—the biggest amount ever debated in the House of Commons. It is not the Government's money. As the Prime Minister constantly tells us, Governments have no money. It is all taxpayers' money. I represent some taxpayers in Bolsover and I want to know what has gone off in that Second Reading. Some of the scheduled debates did not take place. I know for a fact that my hon. Friend did not get a chance to speak. I have with me a list which indicates that many of the debates selected initially by Mr. Speaker have not taken place. Therefore, what we need to do—

The Chairman

Order. This has absolutely nothing to do with clause 1 of the Bill. What the hon. Member is saying is going back to what might have been said on Second Reading had he managed to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Price

That was an intervention.

Mr. Skinner

Yes, it was an intervention. My hon. Friend will have a chance to reply to it or to make any further explanations that are deemed necessary by him. However, my point of order concerns the inability of Opposition Members to oppose. According to all the very important textbooks that Members read before they come here, we are supposed to have the ability to oppose at all times. We should not be gagged. We are here to oppose day in and day out, throughout every hour possible. That is what we are doing here.

What I am saying, on a point of order, is that I have not had a chance, nor has any hon. Member, to read what has happened on Second Reading. When such a lot of money as this is being spent, hon. Members have the right to know what has been said on Second Reading. What I am saying to you, Mr. Weatherill, on a point of order, is that surely, if we have not had a chance to read what has taken place, there ought to be a little more licence given when decisions are made about whether Members are in order. Let us face it: we have clause 1 of the Bill and a sum of £ 41,000 million, and here is a bloke from the Treasury on the Front Bench who has never even got up and said anything.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member rose on a point of order and is now making a speech. I think that I can help him by saving him from the need to say anything else. From early yesterday afternoon, and throughout the night, he has had the opportunity, if he had so wished, to be here and to have taken part in the debate. It is not in order to discuss those matters in any sense on the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You made a remark about my not being present. If you check my record, you will find that I am here more often than you have been—even when you were a Whip.

The Chairman

I did not say that the hon. Member was not present. I said that he had the opportunity.

Mr. Skinner

My debate was not reached.

Mr. English

Further to the point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Is it your opinion that the whole of this debate may be a mistake? On the Order Paper the motion merely says: Remaining stages may also be taken", It is customary to take them on the day after the Second Reading. I should have thought that perhaps the Government Whips thought that they would get this through on the nod. It strikes me that the Government Whips may have made a terrible error.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I think that we can clear up this whole matter, if I may enlighten the House. Earlier this afternoon we passed the business motion which made it perfectly in order for these remaining stages to be taken now.

Mr. English

It is still a mistake.

Mr. Price

I think that I was on my feet, Mr. Weatherill, before all that happened. I do not dispute what you have said. I accept completely that when the Government put on the Order Paper Remaining stases may also be taken", that is a signal to Members that they should be here and ready to discuss these matters. However, I think that what is important on this issue is that, although there may be agreements between the two Front Benches when the Order Paper says Remaining stages may also be taken. that cannot deprive Back Benchers of their right fully to discuss particular clauses during a Committee stage if that appears to be proper and the right thing to do. That is what I am attempting to do now, in urging the rejection of clause 1.

Mr. Skinner

I have just been reading the business motion passed yesterday, on the nod, as it were. It says nothing about the necessity for the Treasury spokesman to rise to speak on clause 1 and tell us what is happening to this £41,000 million. All that it says is that the stages may be taken together. We are not disputing that. I am not, and nor are any of my hon. Friends, in dispute about that.

It is high time we had an explanation from the Treasury Bench. Why cannot the Minister explain where the money is going? It was not mentioned on Second Reading. One would expect a Treasury Bench spokesman who used to edit a Right-wing newspaper to jump up straight away and want to explain why all this money is being spent. There is nothing in the business motion that says that he cannot explain what the £41,000 million is all about. The taxpayers in Bolsover and throughout the country want to know.

The Chairman

Perhaps I can help the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and the rest of the Committee if I read the following extract from "Erskine May": On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed". On clause 1 stand part we can discuss only whether the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Price

I take that point, Mr. Weatherill. I do not dispute your ruling. All that I am trying to do, in the face of a number of points of order, is to argue that clause 1 should not stand part.

On a clause relating to expenditure of such magnitude, I should have expected an immediate intervention from the Treasury Branch. If I had not risen, the matter would have been dealt with on the nod. The Minister knows that perfectly well. He hoped that £41,601,455,200 would be passed on the nod, without any explanation from him of what it was all about.

Mr. Skinner

Normally on Consolidated Fund Bills we have a full day's debate, starting at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps after statements, a few points of order and applications for Adjournment debates under Standing Order No. 9 by a few hon. Members with fish to fry. Then we get on to the Bill at around 4 o'clock, perhaps half-past four or 5 o'clock. But yesterday the Government chose also to put down another motion, which greatly reduced the amount of time available for us to discuss the Bill. There was a motion in the Prime Minister's name: That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 27th October"— it sounds like a recess for Christmas as well— and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker"—

The Chairman

Order. That has nothing to do with whether the clause stand part. We must confine ourselves wholly and exclusively to that.

Mr. Skinner

I was here when there looked like being a vote at about 9 o'clock—

Mr. Harrison

Last night or this morning?

Mr. Skinner

We had better get it right. It was 9 pm as of Monday, but of course we are still on this day's sitting, which is Monday in theory, although the calendar says that it is Tuesday. There was nearly a vote at 9 pm. The point is that we did not start on the Bill until then. It was probably the shortest Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading debate that we have had in the 10 years that I have been here.

It is a good idea to debate the clauses—very narrowly, in accordance with the Chairman's instructions—for the reason that I have just advanced, that we had no chance to start the debate until 9 o'clock last night. Therefore, we are making up some of the lost ground. It is extremely important that my hon. Friend gets on to the matter of the £41,000 million and the little bit extra. It is important that the taxpayer gets to know what is happening to the money. But this lousy Tory Government will not tell the British public what they are doing with the money. The Government tell me that they are cutting defence expenditure. I have been reading this morning—

The Chairman

Order. We cannot have interventions of this length. They are really speeches.

11 a.m.

Mr. Price

Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. I found the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover most illuminating. However, I agree that if I were to follow my hon. Friend's line of argument I should be ruled out of order. I might stand in jeopardy—

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Is it not wholly improper for an hon. Member to make assumptions in advance about your rulings?

Mr. Price

I resile from those words, Mr. Weatherill. I simply say that I might have been ruled out of order if I had gone down that particular road. I agree that all that the Committee is entitled to discuss and vote on is whether we accept that there shall be expenditure of the size stated in the Bill. That is the only matter that we are properly able to discuss. It is a question whether we accept the clause or reject it.

It is most difficult—although an effort is being made—to discuss this clause without discussing the words in it. The clause refers to the sum of £41,601,455,200. I believe that any other democratic assembly in the world would be astonished if it were to find that during the Committee stage of a Bill a Parliament of any kind accepted or rejected a clause this magnitude on the nod. That is what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been rather assuming. I took that to be his attitude, judging by his slightly sunken posture on the Government Front Bench.

It is absolutely proper that we should discuss this matter and I recommend to the Committee that this clause do not stand part of the Bill, for the following reasons. My first reason—and it is a traditional reason—is that it is quite impossible for us to come to a decision about whether it is proper to spend this money until we get much more information from the sedentary Financial Secretary about the context of the entire clause.

I agree with you Mr. Weatherill, that if I were to go into too great detail, or any detail at all, about the make-up of this £41,601,455,200—

Mr. English

My hon. Friend is quite right in rehearsing the ruling that the Chairman gave. The Chairman quoted from "Erskine May" and said that the subject of expenditure might not be discussed. There is every good reason, I should have thought, why the procedure under which that expenditure is authorised in the Bill should be discussed. That is not excluded by "Erskine May".

Mr. Price

I thank my hon. Friend. His encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters is so much greater than mine that I am sure that the slight respite afforded by my brief remarks this morning will enable him to address the Committee on procedural matters. I hope that he does that.

Although I am not allowed to break down the sum and go into details—we are discussing the Consolidated Fund—the Committee is entitled to an explanation of the meaning of clause 1 from the Treasury Bench. If we do not get that explanation, Committee stages of Bills are turned into a farce. It has been traditional to pass these clauses on the nod, but a Government are now in power who want to scrutinise expenditure very closely.

I shall bring my remarks to a close very shortly, Mr. Weatherill, because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on the clause and I do not want to stand in their way. However, before I finish I must stress that, on every stand part debate, Ministers normally explain what the clauses seek to achieve. If the Financial Secretary is minded to remain seated throughout this discussion, it will be a scandal.

Mr. Skinner

Will my hon. Friend give way? There is another reason why we have departed, not from precedent but from the normal style of dealing with this part of the Bill. The procedure changed three of four years ago—

Mr. Price

Three years.

Mr. Skinner

One morning three years ago, I heard the radio announcer say that the House was still sitting. We all know that that does not mean that every right hon. and hon. Member is here. That is a bit of a gimmick. It stated on the radio that we were breaking with precedent—

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

My hon. Friend has misquoted what was said on the radio. The announcer said that MPs had been up all night. That was not true. Only a few hon. Members had been up all night—

Mr. Skinner

Did it say "some"?

Mr. English

No, it said simply that MPs had been up all night—

The Chairman

Order. It is not in order to discuss whether we have been up for one night, two nights or three nights. It is in order only to discuss whether we are to pass the clause. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to put the Question and then we could take a decision. The Question is, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill—

Mr. Price

No.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend is in the middle of a speech.

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that you will not put the Question unless someone has moved and carried the closure which, somehow, I suspect they may be unable to do at the moment.

Mr. Price

Perhaps I may continue my speech. I was in the process of drawing my remarks to a close when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made a useful interruption.

Mr. Skinner

I had not quite finished it. The point I was trying to explain to my hon. Friend, who has been dealing with many matters in the past 24 hours—matters concerning the Attorney-General, and doing a splendid job in that regard—was that suddenly the Opposition, including the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary—I am not sure whether he is right honourable—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Skinner

He is not, but he is trying hard.

At that time, the whole world seemed to be upside down. The radio stated that the House of Commons was debating the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time, I had been a Member of Parliament for seven years and knew that nothing like that had happened before. It was said that Labour Whips were searching for Labour Members to vote for the closure. You, Mr. Weatherill, probably remember the occasion. It was a maverick operation.

The Chairman

I remind the hon. Gentleman again that that has nothing to do with the question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. It is an abuse of our procedures to intervene at length on matters that we are not discussing.

Mr. Price

A number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I am anxious to hear the Financial Secretary attempt to rebut my arguments.

It is unreasonable for the House to pass a clause involving £41,601 million without an explanation from the Government about the policies on which it is based.

The Chairman

Order. Before further interventions occur, I remind the Committee that it would not be in order for the Minister either to go into detail on the matter. The issue is simply whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis

It is unusual to have a clause stand part debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminded us, it is not unique. This is the third occasion on which we have had such a debate since my hon. Friend has been in the House. It is not the second. When such a debate takes place, the Opposition consider that there is a good reason for it. The reason today must be well known to the Government.

The debate and closure on Second Reading are matters of tradition. During the debate hon. Members endeavour to raise items of specific expenditure.

I wish to deal with the principle of appropriation in clause 1. Similar debates took place in 1977, 1971 and 1961. The occasion before that was in 1913. It appears that such debates are occurring with increasing rapidity. In 1961 the late Hugh Gaitskell participated in the debate, as did Lord Diamond. In 1977, the then Conservative Opposition used the opportunity to force the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement on security. No doubt that was an important occasion and serious matters required the attendance of the Prime Minister. I was not here, so I cannot comment too closely on what took place in 1977. But hon. Members succeeded in getting the Prime Minister to come to the House. I have read the report of the debate.

11.15 am

Mr. Christopher Price

We are all very unhappy that my hon. Friend was not with us on that occasion. However, I was here on that occasion. We had a considerable debate, largely raised by Opposition Members in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It was directed, through intermittent points of order, to whether the Prime Minister should come to the House and make a statement about security. I think that we have been impeccable today in keeping within the rules of order. My hon. Friend has properly cited precedents for a debate on clause 1 stand part. Although he was not with us in 1977, we would have wished him to be present. However, as I said, he is correct in citing these precedents.

Mr. Davis

rose—

The Chairman

Order. I was also present on that occasion. My predecessor ruled, as I have ruled, and I repeat yet again, that hon. Members may discuss only whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. They may not go into detail of any kind.

Mr. Davis

I accept your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. I was only seeking to explain why I do not think that it lies in the Government's mouth to complain about Opposition Members seeking a debate on clause 1 stand part.

Turning to the clause, I should express disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I am sad to express such disagreement in view of his kind remarks about me. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend in opposing clause 1. I take this step, unusual as it may be from these Benches, especially as I sometimes act as a Whip for the Opposition, because I regard this as an important clause. It may surprise my hon. Friends that I step forward to support the Government, but, as I said, this is an important clause. Clearly, I shall have to give my reasons for taking this most unusual course of suggesting that the Opposition would be ill-advised to vote against the clause.

I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West on one point. He was mistaken when he said that clause 1 provides that money "shall" be spent. It does not say that money "shall" be spent or made available. It say that money "may" be made available. There is a world of difference between the interpretation of "shall" and that of "may". I shall not take up the time of the House by reiterating the admirable explanation of the meaning of "may" put forward in the debate in 1961 by some of our most illustrious predecessors. I shall turn straight away to the effect of not approving the clause.

As I understand it—if I am wrong, I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will correct me—if we do not approve clause 1, a number of people who are employed by the Government will not be paid because the money will not be available for them to be paid. My hon. Friends might take pleasure in the prospect of some Ministers not being paid. However, it would affect others as well. Even though there seemed to be some clash between you, Mr. Weatherill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, when I think he was seeking to presume a little on the prerogative of the Chair, I think that he would be most unhappy if you were not paid. Yet, as I understand it, if we do not approve clause 1, the Chairman will not be paid. It would not stop there. No doubt hon. Members would not be paid, but they presumably would have savings on which they could draw. The effect of not approving the clause will be that thousands of civil servants will not be paid.

Mr. English

Is it not possible that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister will get her way in that, instead of being defeated in the Cabinet, if the clause were not passed, teachers would not be paid either?

Mr. Davis

I had considered that point, but I decided not to make it because I believe that teachers are paid by local government and I am not quite clear—

The Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not now go into any detail because, as I have already pointed out in quoting from Erskine May, that is not in order.

Mr. Davis

Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that you will bring me back to the paths of righteousness if I stray again. I took the precaution of reading "Erskine May" before this debate began. However, it is the first time that I have read that section of "Erskine May", because I have never taken part in the Committee stage debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill before. Therefore, it is possible that I shall stray out of order, but I am sure that you will bring me back if I do. I thank you for that correction.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

I agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the effect of clause 1 would be to make possible certain disbursements that are highly desirable. That is an argument in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill. However, is my hon. Friend really saying that because of that we should overlook the possibility that some of the disbursements may not be so desirable or not desirable at all? Does my hon. Friend think that we ought to be in favour of the clause standing part even though, apparently, we are not allowed to refer to any of the undesirable possibilities that may arise as a result of the clause?

Mr. Davis

I do not take that view. I believe that clause 1, like many other matters that we must consider in this House, is like the curate's egg. It is good in parts and it is bad in parts. It is for each hon. Member to make up his own mind about whether on balance the good outweighs the bad. In my view, the effect of not agreeing that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill would be very serious on a lot of people who can ill-afford it. However, Mr. Weatherill, I shall not describe them. Indeed, in some cases the effect would be tragic. I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to pursue their opposition to the Government's policies to the point of voting aganst clause 1.

Mr. Skinner

I listened closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who no doubt will be able to explain more fully why he felt it necessary to propose the rejection of the clause. There is no doubt that this is a fine balance. Like most things in life, we must find the right balance. As I understood it, my hon. Friend was saying that we should reject the clause on the basis that no explanation has been given. It could be that at by doing that, and by defeating the Government, we would throw out the baby with the bath water. I am not sure who concocted that phrase.

Mr. Walter Harrison

A midwife.

Mr. Skinner

It must have been a midwife—

The Chairman

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please address his remarks to me?

Mr. Skinner

Yes, Mr. Weatherill. I suppose that on every occasion the Chairman is bound to be right. I was saying that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) did not get the gist of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was saying. He said that he wants the money to be spent on all the worthwhile projects contained within this massive amount of money—£41,000 million—which ought to be scrutinised, especially as the Government came to power on the basis of scrutinising every little item and every penny of taxpayers' money.

Of course, the Government have no money. It all belongs to the taxpayers, as we are constantly reminded. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was asking us to reject the clause on the basis that we have not received a proper explanation. It is that kind of balance. I do not believe that there is that much difference between my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford is now making a fine contribution as to why this matter should be discussed in the way that it is being discussed, and why these precedents are being broken more often. That is really a tautology—

Mr. Harrison

That is a good word.

Mr. Skinner

Yes, it is.

Mr. Mikardo

It is a pleonasm actually.

Mr. Skinner

Well, it is something else—

The Chairman

Order. Mr. Terry Davis.

Mr. Davis

As you know, Mr. Weatherill, I cannot answer my hon. Friend in detail. I listened most closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and I felt that he was wrong in arguing that we should not pass the clause on the ground that there has not been adequate discussion of the detail. I understand that whenever we have a Second Reading of a Consolidated Fund Bill, the closure is moved and the Government bring in their Back Benchers in order to make it effective, so that they can move on to the next stage of the Bill.

I recognise that many Conservative Members have stayed through the night and come in to support their Government, and I respect them for it. In view of what happens every year, I do not think it fair to say that we shall vote against the clause on the ground that there has not been an adequate opportunity to explore the details. I agree that there has not been an adequate opportunity to explore the details, but it would be going too far in pursuit of that argument to vote against the clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is mistaken in thinking that the quotation about throwing out the baby with the bath water came from the midwife. It came from that most prolific source of quotations, the one always listed as Anon. Anon has been responsible for most of the famous quotations.

Mr. English

I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the assertion that he said that the phrase was invented by a midwife. That assertion came from the Deputy Chief Opposition Whip.

Mr. Davis

I make no comment on the Deputy Chief Whip's learning. All I can say is that, from my knowledge of English literature, it comes from Anon.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right in saying that it is a matter of balance. In the Labour Party we are accustomed to taking our decisions, at the end of a closely argued debate, on a matter of balance. I do not declare myself to be in total opposition to my hon. Friends. I am simply saying that on balance it would be wrong to throw out the good parts of Government expenditure as well as the bad parts. There are, of course, some items to which they would object. They could explain their objections if we were able to debate the matter, but that is not possible. It is not possible to amend the Bill and take out the things with which we disagree. We have to make up our minds on balance whether it is right or wrong to vote for the clause.

Mr. Michael Welsh (Don Valley)

If we accept the principle that there are good and bad parts and that the good parts can be implemented, is it not a fact that as years go by the Government of the day will always implement things without being questioned in the House of Commons? Is it not vital that the Government should come to this Chamber to discuss their spending? Now that we have some new young lads in the Chamber, would it not be worth while to throw it out, so that we can show that we can make any Government accountable to this Chamber for their spending—

The Chairman

Order. It is not in order to discuss the good parts or the bad parts. It is in order only to discuss clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Davis

I understand that, Mr. Weatherill, and I was not intending to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh).

It is not only people who would not be paid. Most important of all, many sections of industry would suffer if we did not approve the clause. It comes ill from my hon. Friends, as well as from Conservative Members, to discuss the possibility of not providing the money when all through the night hon. Members on both sides were trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in order to draw attention to the tremendous problems faced by British industry today. If we do not—

The Chairman

Order. I am very sorry to keep interrupting, but it is a fact that the hon. Member is now seeking to discuss subject matters. He may not do that. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, when the hon. Gentleman sits down, I put the Question, so that we can come to a conclusion about it, whether the clause is passed or not.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Will you be kind enough, Mr. Weatherill, to clarify for my benefit, if not for the benefit of other hon. Members, the ruling that you have given based on the extracts that you have read from "Erskine May"? It seems that there is some lack of clarity around the edges of the quotations and around, if I may say so, with respect, the edges of your ruling.

You say, Mr. Weatherill, that we are entitled to discuss only whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. An hon. Member may argue that in his view the clause should stand part of the Bill or that it should not. It is manifestly inconceivable that one should advance either of those arguments without adducing the reason for the argument, without adducing the considerations that lead one to decide either that one should or should not support the proposition.

It is impossible to argue, Mr. Weatherill, whether the clause should stand part of the Bill without saying why it should. Manifestly that argument is not ruled out by the proposition that detail may not be discussed. Indeed, the very word "detail" is one that is incapable of definition. At what stage when moving down the scale from the general to the specific do we reach detail? If one argues that the sum is too great, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum is too small, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum covers items which it should not cover, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum does not include items which one thinks should be included, is that a detail? What does this mean?

Surely it is this sort of thing that brings the procedures of the House into contempt among the public. I know of no other assembly in the world, from the highest to the lowest, from the United Nations to the smallest parish council, in which one may discuss whether money should be spent but not mention on what it should be spent.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman has illustrated amply the point that I have been seeking to make in my interventions. In the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", the Committee may either confirm or reject. It can do nothing else. No speeches will be in order that are not addressed to that Question.

As for the clauses dealing with the issue of moneys from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure may not be discussed. That is a clear rule. I am bound by the rules of the House and I have no authority or power to change that. If a change is desired, there are other methods of doing it. However, those methods are not for this debate.

Mr. English

That is absolutely correct, Mr. Weatherill. However, I wish to address myself on this point of order to the remarks you made shortly before my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) raised his point of order.

You were suggesting, Mr. Weatherill, putting the motion to the vote of your own volition. I respectfully submit, Mr. Weatherill, that that would be an unwise thing to do. If the Government Chief Whip chose to move the Closure and you chose to accept it, Mr. Weatherill, it might conceivably be the wish of my hon. Friends to divide the House to ascertain whether the Government have over 100 of their supporters in this place or whether some of them are attending to duties outside the House, possibly earning the money that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister will not allow them to earn in the House.

It is the belief of some of us, Mr. Weatherill, that not all Government Members who voted in the earlier Division are in the Palace of Westminster. We would like an opportunity to test that. With respect, Mr. Weatherill, it would be most unwise of you to put the Question to a vote without ascertaining whether the Government are capable of winning the closure on this debate.

The Chairman

That is not a matter for me. I suggested that as this was a narrow debate, the easiest way to decide whether clause 1 should stand part would be to put the Question. That is all that I suggested.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. It is in order for hon. Members to adduce reasons as to why the clause should not stand part. However, they must remain in order, and I shall remain rigid on that point.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have drawn the attention of the House to the relevant passage in "Erskine May". At the beginning of the debate I raised a question about the specific authority required for the Committee stage to be taken. "Erskine May" points out that the Committee stage cannot be taken on the same day as Second Reading, without a resolution of the House. The resolution does not state that the remaining stages shall be taken. It says that those stages may be taken.

I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Weatherill, because it would seem that the guidance given in "Erskine May" is that the House should pass a resolution giving a clear indication that it wishes the Committee stage to be taken on the same day. That is not true of the business motion. It is simply a rough guide. Will you rule, Mr. Weatherill, that the business motion does not conform with the guidance laid down on page 747 of "Erskine May"?

The Chairman

I cannot do that. The hon. Member had an opportunity to raise this issue when the business motion was put. He did not take that opportunity. The House passed the business motion, which clearly states: more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. English

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is learned in these matters, did not wish to oppose the business motion. At that point, he would not have wished to point out to the Government Chief Whip the error of his ways.

The Chairman

That does not involve a matter of order. We should be discussing clause 1 stand part. Let us get back to that.

Mr. Cryer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The fact that the business motion was passed and could have been debated does not affect the present position. If the business motion was defective in relation to the guidance given in "Erskine May", it remains so. I do not know whether the resolution was defective, but if it was, it would be irrelevant to the debate. If the proper authority, as laid down on page 747 of "Erskine May", did not apply, it does not apply now. I seek your guidance on that point.

The Chairman

Any resolution or motion that is passed by the House has been passed. We operate under that resolution.

Mr. Terry Davis

I appreciate the way, Mr. Weatherill, in which you are pursuing your role as Chairman. I have read the record of what happened three years ago and I understand the difficulty. I have also taken the precaution of reading "Erskine May". If my hon. Friend's experience difficulty about whether or not they are in order, they should read pages 743 to 749 of "Erskine May".

Mr. Christopher Price

Read it to us.

Mr. Davis

I shall not pursue that suggestion. My hon. Friends can go to the Library and read it. In addition, they should read the edition of Hansard dated 28 July 1977. You have referred, Mr. Weatherill, to the possibility of putting this matter to the vote as soon as I finish speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] I am glad to learn that I misunderstood. On that occasion the debate on clause 1 stand part took two and a half hours, from 11 am to 1.30 pm. That was after an hour of points of order by the then Opposition. Today we went straight into the debate on clause stand part.

On the last occasion, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) drew attention to the amount of money involved in clause 1. He said that it was a large sum amounting to £22,000 million. On this occasion—

The Chairman

Order. It is not in order to discuss what happened in that year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in those days I say where he is, so I know.

Mr. Davis

I was not seeking to discuss a debate in which, unfortunately, I did not participate, but I was drawing attention to what the hon. Member for Chingford said, because it is relevant to my argument. Clause 1 of the Bill states: The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 the sum of £41,601,455,200.

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. My hon. Friend is only a year out. He would be in order if he discussed 1978 instead of 1977 because the Bill repeals three Acts. The most important of them involves £26 billion of the £41 billion and is the Appropriation Act 1978.

Mr. Davis

I must leave that to my hon. Friends in the hope that they will catch the Chair's eye.

The sum of money involved in the Bill is about £41 billion, or rounded to the nearest billion pounds, £42 billion. In 1977 the hon. Member for Chingford drew attention to the rate at which the sum was increasing. At that time the sum involved was £22 billion.

This is not the first but the second Consolidated Fund Bill that we have discussed in this Parliament. The previous Bill, which was passed on 27 July 1979, involved £31 billion. That is a remarkable rate of increase. The sum has risen from £31 billion to about £42 billion. That is an increase of one-third in 12 months under a Government who are committed to controlling public expenditure. The rate of increase is remarkable. In 1977 the hon. Member for Chingford drew attention to the debate in Committee in 1961 in which Mr. Gaitskell took part and which involved a much smaller sum.

The point that I am trying to make is that the sum involved is increasing at a remarkable rate. I shall vote for the clause because of its effect on many people. Nevertheless, I hope that the Treasury Minister will explain why the amount of money involved has increased by one-third in 12 months. I hope that the Minister will reply. I hope that he does not leave me to do all his job for him. I hope that he will explain the inflationary or deflationary effect of the Bill on the economy. That has been discussed in great detail in previous debates.

I do not presume that I have the expertise—

11.45 am

Mr. Skinner

We do not wish to bandy about figures, but the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill last year provided for £31 billion, but this Bill provides for £42 billion. That is the point being made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis). We have heard about the balance—should we vote for or against the Bill? Some hon. Members may wish to abstain. They could be tormented to the point of abstention.

Mr. Davis

In the Lancashire marginals.

Mr. Skinner

Are we sure about the figures? With an astronomical rate of inflation—which the Conservative Government were elected to control at a stroke, or whatever—can we be sure that £41 billion equates with the present position? Unemployment is rising astronomically, which means that about £7 billion is being expended on the unemployed—at least, that is what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said. It might be a good idea if he came to the House and explained why he is out of line with Government policy. He said that it is costing £7 billion to finance the dole queue, out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £9 billion. He said that that is too high a price to pay for squeezing inflation out of the economy. Can we be sure that £41 billion is the correct figure? We need an explanation of that. Has it risen on the basis of increased unemployment and the massive number of liquidations and bankruptcies? We must try to extract from the Government whether based upon the escalating figures, they are satisfied that the figure is correct.

We are not discussing whether the £41 billion contains this, that or the other. I am asking whether we can be sure that the figure is correct. Is it up to date The Treasury is noted for being way out in its figures. I remember that a few years ago the previous Labour Government found that the Treasury was £5 billion out in the space of 12 months. The Treasury tends to run the show anyway, and it is beginning to get hold of the Government in various ways. At that time we should have debated the Consolidated Fund Bill to find out how far the figure was incorrect On the basis of that knowledge, we are now raising an important point. My hon. Friends the Members for Stechford and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) have dealt with the matter from a different angle.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is out of order. I remind the Committee that the House decided by a resolution on 6 June that this sum should be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It is not in order for the Committee to attempt to go behind that resolution now.

Mr. Davis

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover put his finger on one reason for the dramatic increase in the sum that we are being asked to approve, namely, inflation which is now running at 20 per cent. There is bound to be a big increase in the amount of money provided in the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. However, it is not only the effects of inflation that should be taken into account. My hon. Friend referred to inaccuracies in Treasury figures. He may remember that before the last general election we debated a Consolidated Fund Bill because there must be an Appropriation Act before Parliament is dissolved. On that occasion, the amount of money provided in the Bill—which became the first Appropriation Act of 1979—was £23 billion. By July, the figure had increased to £31 billion. Now it has nearly doubled to £42 billion. That is not only because of the effects of inflation—something else is happening. My hon. Friend is right to ask for an explanation. We may not receive that explanation today because it would involve the Minister in a great deal of detail. But I hope that at least he will talk in general terms about the totality of the gross figure of £42 billion.

I hope that the Minister will say what effect that sum will have on the economy. Will it be inflationary or deflationary? Nineteen years ago there was a long debate about the effect of a much smaller sum—

Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Davis) leaves the topic raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which is important when considering the figure under discussion, may I say that it is increasingly difficult to know whether this figure is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made the point—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the figure is not correct. I understand that just before I took the Chair the previous occupant had indicated that the House, by resolution, had approved this sum. Therefore, I do not propose to listen to argument about the correctness or otherwise of the sum.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. When you said just now that immediately before taking the Chair you heard the previous occupant say that the sum was in order because it had been approved by a resolution of the House, you will also recall that he gave a date in June. It is clear—such is this Government's lack of control of spending, and so on, despite all the cosmetic statements bandied about by the Prime Minister and her minions—that expenditure is completely out of control and money is being spent about which they are not at all sure. From June to the first week in August is a pretty long time, bearing in mind that the sum has already gone up by 30-odd per cent.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are outside the scope of this debate. Let me make the position quite clear to the Committee. The relevant resolution was passed by the House on 31 July.

Mr. Walter Harrison

Your predecessor said June.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have just been advised that reference is made in the orders to 31 July.

Mr. Harrison

June.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I do not intend to enter into an argument about that. I am telling the Committee that the resolution was passed by the House on 31 July.

Mr. Woolmer

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover intervened with his point of order, I was about to make the point that I was not questioning the correctness of the sum which, as you rightly say, Mr. Crawshaw, has already been the subject of a resolution of the House. I have come here today to listen to the arguments being put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stetchford was making the point—and I wanted him to clarify it before he sat down—that, although we had agreed to a figure and were not arguing about it, in money terms the figure which we had agreed had become out of date to the tune of £2 million a day at the current rate of inflation since we last considered it.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The amount was passed by the House, and that is the amount which the Committee is considering. We are not considering whether inflation had any bearing on it. We are considering the amount referred to in the original resolution.

Mr. Terry Davis

Yes, we are discussing the amount referred to in the original resolution and, of course, we cannot amend that sum.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

I shall not argue about the figure. However, bearing in mind the figure that we are discussing and bearing in mind what has been said about inflation and what this Government said they would do if they were elected—

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is now starting another argument altogether. We are debating the figure which was passed by a resolution of the House on 31 July. The Committee must keep to that figure.

Mr. Davis

I am not seeking to change the figure. We cannot change it, because it is already in the resolution, as you remind us, Mr. Crawshaw. However, we are entitled to debate whether this clause should stand part of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend accept that the principle of debating the clause is important, because it is clear that the House is discussing large, even astronomical, sums, which our procedures for examination and scrutiny are not keeping up with? Since the House is evolving procedures all the time, the fact that my hon. Friend is to vote in favour of clause 1 standing part of the Bill is not relevant and it is important that Back-Bench Members examine the clause and the arguments on the question whether it should stand part of the Bill, so that by raising the issues involved and by stopping the clause going through on the nod we shall produce pressure for better scrutiny to allow us to discuss the detail at some time in the future.

Mr. Davis

I accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying. There is a need to bring up to date the House's procedures on the scrutiny of Government expenditure. However, the amount that we are discussing has been established and, as the Chairman told us when he was in the Chair, the detail cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Haynes

I repeat that I am not arguing about the figures; I am concerned about the principle of the matter. Many people outside the House will want to know where this sort of money—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have a point of principle to raise, but all that we can discuss is whether we are to pass the amount contained in the clause. If the House wishes to change its procedures, that is a matter for the House, but as things stand the issue is whether we pass the figure in the clause. Other hon. Members may share the view of the hon. Member for Ashfield, but it is up to the House to change its procedures. I cannot change them today.

Mr. Davis

We have to discuss the merits of the sum contained in clause 1. I must advise my hon. Friends that they cannot raise matters of detail, desirable though that may be. We had an opportunity to discuss the detail during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Skinner

I do not want to discuss the details. Perhaps we have delved into matters that we should not have delved into, but that is neither here nor there. I am sure that the Clerk and the Chair will agree with the point that I am about to make.

We should have the ability to influence the Government sometimes. The Government have a majority of about 70 over the Labour Party and I am not saying that we can have a great influence, but there are occasions, though not many, when a few speeches in the House can register in the thick skulls of the Government. That does happen sometimes.

Within the narrow remit of the clause, we are saying that this is not the right time to be debating the matter. We ought to try to influence the Government, if not on this occasion at least on a future occasion, to bear in mind that the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, containing such a mammoth amount of expenditure, ought to be examined in a different manner.

It could be that the upsurge of feeling among my hon. Friends who are trying to—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have heard the arguments that have been put forward. Possibly they are genuine arguments about the House's ability to question the Government.

Mr. Skinner

They are.

The Second Deputy Chairman

They are genuine arguments, but I point out that the custom in the past—I accept that customs can be changed—has been that because the Committee stage went through on the nod—because people's salaries are involved—and clauses were not voted against, the House was given the opportunity to have numerous debates throughout the night on the Second Reading. That was the quid pro quo for the Committee stage being taken formally.

If the House thinks that that is wrong, it has the power to change the arrangements. But the House had had an all-night sitting, debating subjects of hon. Members' choice. If the House wants to change that pattern and to debate the items in the Consolidated Fund, it is within the power of the House to take such a decision. It is not within its power to do so now. The rules are clear. It is for the House to change those rules. If we had got rid of all the debates during the night, we could have been discussing these matters. That is the background. I hope that we can come to a decision on clause 1.

12 noon

Mr. Mikardo

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cranshaw. I wonder whether I can make a submission which I made to your predecessor in the Chair and to which he gave a reply directed to a point different from the one I submitted. His reply was immaculate but on a different point. Surely, the ruling that is laid down in "Erskine May" puts us all in a difficulty. The ruling is not easy to understand. It is clear from "Erskine May" that one must not discuss detail and that one can direct one's mind only to the question of considering whether one considers that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

In terms of any common sense in debate, one must surely give, if arguing in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill, the reasons for so arguing. If one is arguing against the proposal, like some of my hon. Friends, one must also give reasons. No hon. Member is fulfilling his duty if he gets up and says that he is in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill without giving any reason and merely declares "I am not going to tell you why. I am just in favour of it." Alternatively an hon Member might say "I am against the clause standing part of the Bill. I will not tell you why. I am just against it." That would be nonsensical. It would reduce this Mother of Parliaments to an absolute nonsense.

It is clear that an hon. Member must be able to say why he is taking the view he adopts. It is possible that in the course of doing so, he must not get down to the minutiae. I put it to you, with the deepest respect, Mr. Crawshaw, that an hon. Member cannot be prevented from giving his reasons.

The Second Deputy Chairman

My predecessor as Chairman answered that question in terms of what the Chair expects in these debates. So far as I am concerned, that stands at the present time. The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members are in difficulty. The Chair is sometimes in difficulty in trying to keep hon. Members in order within the terms of this debating rule. Sometimes, hon. Members go out of order because they do not understand the rulings. At other times, there might be other reasons. I shall not suggest what those other reasons might be. As matters stand, this is the ruling by which the Chair is bound. I can only repeat what my predecessor in the Chair said. We can go on discussing this, but we shall get outside the rules of debate again for the reasons I have given. I therefore think that the debate should proceed.

Mr. Mikardo

Further to that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I should like to press you a little further. I am genuinely trying to get clarification. Does your ruling mean that an hon. Member is, or is not, entitled, to give the reasons why he is supporting or opposing the motion that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Hon. Members in Committee may argue to affirm or reject. I have made clear how this arises. It arises because of the history of the Consolidated Fund. I cannot say more than that. It is for the House to change its procedure. In the past, it has been the procedure that the House either affirms or rejects. In the House wants to change that situation it must do it by some ruling in the future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Further to the point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Some of us have spent most of the night in the Chamber awaiting debates on Second Reading, and now that we are in Committee you inform us that many of the points that we would have raised should have been raised overnight. These Benches are cluttered with hon. Members who have been waiting in the Lobby to speak in debates that were not called. Might it not be for you, as Deputy Speaker, along with Mr. Speaker, to recommend to the Whips on both sides that in future the Consolidated Fund Bill overnight debates should last until the early hours of the following afternoon? By doing that—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Member has a point, but it is not part of the debate now. What he is saying is merely a continuation of what I outlined to the House. I am sure that the House may wish to look into this problem and the question of how to deal with it, but at present the Chair can accept argument only on whether we pass or do not pass these provisions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

On a point of order. The appropriate passage in "Erskine May" says: On those clauses"— that is, the clauses that we are discussing now— the object of which is to ensure the application of grants made by Parliament to the objects defined by the Supply resolutions, debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriaion. Appropriation presumably is the way in which the money specified in clause 1 is allocated to the various Government services and Departments.

If that is so, is it not possible for us to discuss the areas in which the allocation is made rather than the specific services provided under that allocation? If that is so, the debate must be fairly wide.

Mr. Lawson

That is not so.

Mr. Lyon

If, as I hear the Financial Secretary chuntering from a sedentary position, it is not so, I should be grateful for some indication from the Chair of the extent to which appropriation has relevance in this connection, and of the ambit within which a discussion of the kind embraced by clause 1 may take place.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I do not propose to enter into a discussion on "appropriation". All I am saying as Chairman is that the custom of the House in the past, because of the procedure that we have adopted for dealing with this Fund, is that the Chair will not allow discussion of individual items or how they are arrived at. I have already said that if the House wishes to change the custom it is within the power of the House to do so. We cannot do it today.

Mr. Christopher Price

Further to the point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I take the point that the House has certain customs, but I had always distinguished in my mind, in the proceedings on the Floor of the House, between our customs, which are usually followed with the assent of the whole House, and the rules of order, which bind the Chair and the whole House. I put it to you, Mr. Crawshaw, that it is the rules of order, of procedure in Committee, which should bind the discussion now taking place, and not, as it were, some custom. We do not have a book of customs, except "Erskine May". "Erskine May" is some guide, but surely not every dot and comma of "Erskine May" has to be followed to the letter. Customs are flexible things, which we change from time to time over the years, whereas rules of order are rules of order.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and to the other hon. Gentlemen. We are discussing clause 1. The Chair has made its point quite clear as to what is expected in this debate. Whether or not the Committee agrees, that is what the ruling is. All that we are doing now is discussing points of order, which is taking away the time of the Committee. I feel that we ought to move on now to put the Question on clause 1 to the vote.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. In any debate in the House of Commons the attempt is made to elucidate different positions as to why we agree or disagree about something. But also what happens in debates is that a catalyst is at work. It sometimes helps to change things, not necessarily on that day but on some other occasion. Because we do not have a written constitution, this place is littered with examples of debates on, perhaps, obscure issues, but out of which have arisen changes which have taken place later.

I put it to you, Mr. Crawshaw, that in the early 1970s we entered the Common Market, against the wishes of many of us, and that—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. That cannot possibly be relevant to this matter.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. You have referred to "Erskine May". I should like to draw your attention to page 746 and the chapter dealing with the debate on the Consolidated Fund and "Procedure in Committee". The second sentence says: On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed". I should like your guidance on the word "subjects".

I take it, Mr. Crawshaw, that this means that detailed application of money, say, in the Home Office—the subject of the overnight debate that I was going to raise—for example, the spying at Men-worth Hill near Harrogate, that sort of detail, could not be raised. But surely the interpretation of this word in this section of "Erskine May" does not preclude comment, in discussing the expenditure in the clauses of the Bill, on the amount of money which goes to the Home Office as a whole, a lump sum, together with other subjects which add up to the total global sum.

I should like your guidance as to whether we are limited to discussing purely the global sum, whether we can mention the break-up into the separate sections of a global sum for the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, or whatever, or whether we can go down into the detail, or, if that is excluded from the debate, the detailed administrative costs of the Home Office or whatever.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is excluded.

Mr. Terry Davis

I feel that I owe you an apology, Mr. Crawshaw. It was before you took the Chair, and when Mr. Weatherill was in the Chair—I see that he is now returning to the Chair—that I referred my hon. Friends to "Erskine May" in an attempt to be helpful.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have had a ruling from your predecessor in the Chair, which was in accordance with "Erskine May", that in the debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, we are entitled to discuss only appropriation. I was led to argue that in deciding to discuss appropriation, we were entitled to discuss the way in which the money was allocated. That received dissent from a sedentary position from the Financial Secretary, and the Chair suggested that we were entitled to talk only about the global figure. But in seeking a definition of what "appropriation" is within the meaning of our rules I am looking at page 704—

12.15 pm

The Chairman

I can easily help the hon. Gentleman. What he is really now raising is a point of order about clause 2, not clause 1. He will find that clause 2 deals with Appropriation of sums voted for supply services". Clause 1 does not. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be in order to deal with appropriation on clause 2, but not on clause 1.

Mr. Cryer

Before you came back into the Chair, Mr. Weatherill, I raised a point of order, when the Chair's interpretation seemed to be that it was not possible to debate the detailed application but that the global sum of each individual Department was debatable. Does that apply to clause 1 or clause 2?

The Chairman

On the contrary, the details are not debatable. The only matter that is debatable—I am sorry to repeat this, probably for the eighth or ninth time—is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. The debate is as narrow as that, and I must ask the Committee to stick to it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Does that mean, Mr. Weatherill, that, clause 1 having stood part of the Bill, we could discuss the appropriation of sums under clause 2? I ask only in order that we may know what to do on clause 1.

The Chairman

We are dealing with the Question, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill. When that question has been disposed of I shall propose the Question, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis

Before I was interrupted by those points of order, Mr. Weatherill, I was in the middle of an apology to you for having referred my hon. Friends to "Erskine May" I now realise that that was a sad mistake. I was not seeking to encourage them to raise points of order; I hoped to avoid points of order. I very much regret that I had the opposite effect.

While you were out of the Chair Mr. Weatherill, a very serious point was made by Mr. Crawshaw. If I heard him correctly, he said that it was the precedent for the Committee stage to pass on the nod. In fact, there are precedents against that. It is certainly customary for the Committee stage to be a perfunctory affair, but there are also precedents for a debate when the Opposition have strong feelings—perhaps not connected with the Bill—and use this opportunity to impress their feelings upon the Government. It is an opportunity dear to the hearts of parliamentarians, and it has been used in the past.

In the way in which we conduct our business, it is important to protect this and similar occasions. They may appear like gimmicks to people outside the House, but they are ways in which we can impress our feelings upon the Government. That is what is happening today.

My. hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that he hoped that debates in the House would influence the thinking of the people who currently occupy the Treasury. I thought that that was a very kind remark. Indeed, if it would not upset him too much, I would say that it was a positively moderate remark about the present—

Mr. Skinner

Let us get this matter in the proper perspective before the Official Reporters start putting in things that I have not said. I was talking about the thick skulls of people opposite, for a start. That puts the matter in its proper context.

What I was saying generally was that there was a catalyst at work, in that in this place, on occasions—very rare—a debate about something or other can have a chain reaction resulting in changes taking place later. I was going on to explain that because we do not have a written constitution—it is like Johnny getting older every day; things change—

Mr. Walter Harrison

My hon. Friend should address the Chair.

Mr. Skinner

I am addressing the Chair. I always address the Chair. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that I am not addressing the Chair. You know full well, Mr. Weatherill, that I am addressing the Chair—I have been doing so all morning—

The Chairman

Order. I am very grateful, but I would far rather the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to clause 1—when I call him, and not in an intervention.

Mr. Skinner

I was addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) before he went any further along that road. He cannot really go on record and say that I am expecting the Conservatives suddenly to jump up and be full of realisation, and take account of what we are saying. That is not the point.

My point is that arising out of what has happened this morning it may well be that even the Clerks will look at "Erskine May" rather differently. We might get an understanding of what "narrow" means. I want to know whether "narrow", in terms of a narrow debate, means a little less than wide.

I am saying that the situation can be changed. I was going to say that there might be a metamorphosis. There, I have now said it. I am saying that words should not be put into my mouth. I do not think for a moment that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cares two hoots about what I and my hon. Friends are saying, but there are some people who believe that £41,601,455,200—or nearly £42,000 million—

The Chairman

Order. I really cannot allow the hon. Member to make interventions that are full speeches. He jeopardises the opportunity that he may have to make a contribution later on.

Mr. Terry Davis

I am sorry if I provoked my hon. Friend. I had no wish to sabotage his chances in other spheres in a few moments' time. I should be sorry if my description of him as kind, moderate or even soft on the Government got him into trouble elsewhere.

I am concerned with the amount of money specified in clause 1. I urge my hon. Friends to return to the point, which is clause 1. The question that faces us is whether we should vote that clause 1 stand part of the Bill or not. We are dealing with a large sum of money. It is so large that my hon. Friend could not even read it.

Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)

I am sorry to interrupt the even flow of my hon. Friend's speech. I hope that he will understand that I was listening hard to his earlier point. He thought that we should support the retention of clause 1. That is set against the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who said that we should oppose clause 1 on principle.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on the difficulty that will be created if the Committee rejects clause 1. What are the implications for the rest of the Bill? Does the Bill fall, or do the other clauses stand on their own? We are in grave difficulty on that issue. Will my hon. Friend comment further?

Mr. Davis

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) has put his finger on an extremely important point. I was hoping that I would not be pressed on it because, as I understand it, the constitutional consequences of not voting for clause 1 stand part are extremely serious. As far as I am able to discover from my researches, the situation will be totally unprecedented in the annals of the House.

It was suggested, when similar clauses in other Appropriation Bills were being debated, that such a situation would abort the whole procedure and that the situation would be so serious that, apart from people not being paid, and industry not having bills paid, the Prime Minister, in all probability, would feel obliged to call a general election.

I was anxious to persuade my hon. Friends to vote for clause 1. However, in all honesty I must tell them that the situation might precipitate a general election. I realise that in saying that I shall probably persuade them to completely the opposite point of view to my own. Inciting them to vote against the Bill in the hope that they will precipitate a general election at the same time means that we shall lose the support of some of the tormented souls on the Conservative Benches who might have been persuaded to vote against the measure for reasons, perhaps, related to the control of public expenditure or other issues.

If a general election were precipitated it would have some beneficial effects.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis

If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will allow me to finish my point I shall give way shortly. I hope to give way to him. I have given way to everybody else this morning. I am very open. I was about to explain that the consequences of having a general election at present would be most serious. However, the effects would not be bad, because many of us believe that the result of such an election would be that a Labour Government would be returned. We might then have a totally different policy not only for the economy but in other areas as well.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend raises a most interesting point concerning a general election and people voting against the clause. Is he aware that a number of Conservative hon. Members in marginal seats in Lancashire make it a practice of voting against the Government in the Lobbies on issues that are sometimes important but never central to Government policy, as in this case, and then return to their constituencies and inform the local press of what guts they have in standing up to the Government? The truth is that they sit like mice on the Government Benches and never say a word. Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of a general election against the background of that kind of activity? Does he agree that this is a particularly apt opportunity for these hon. Members to be flushed out'? This is a sensitive and important issue. It gives us an opportunity to establish the position of those hon. Members on a matter of importance to the Government.

Mr. Davis

I shall not go into that aspect, Mr. Weatherill, because I think that that would range outside the rules of order. If I were to digress in that direction, I should be much more concerned with the way in which Conservative Members with marginal seats in the West Midlands vote.

Mr. Cryer

rose—

Mr. Davis

I know that I promised to give way to my hon. Friend. I ask him simply to contain his impatience for a moment longer.

We have to consider what would happen between the defeat of the clause and the general election that we envisage would follow. There would be a gap of several weeks during which people would be unable to obtain money. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to impose that fate on innocent people who tike no part in the political battles inside and outside the House. There is of course the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Mikardo

Surely my hon. Friend has not forgotten that a lot of people are not able to obtain money for several weeks at a time because of Government policy and are forced to put up with that. I refer to claimants whose benefits are delayed while snoopers go around investigating. Pensioners are kept waiting because of some mess-up at Newcastle. If a few more people suffered those discomfitures resulting from Government policy perhaps there would be such an outcry that the Government would start to put things right.

Mr. Davis

It is not only those people who would suffer. It is possible that the people who receive supplementary benefit would suffer, because they would be unable to obtain their money.

I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that I would give way to him. I am sorry that I have not already done so.

Mr. Cryer

If the Government were unable to pay out money, that would be most important. However, the Government have a numerical advantage and they could introduce a motion of confidence. No doubt Conservative Members will all go into the Lobby to support them.

Will my hon. Friend, when he has finished his remarks about the possibility of a general election, spell out the balance of advantage of passing or attempting to reject the clause in view of the circumstances that he outlined? I thought that he did not go into those circumstances fully enough. He referred to people who would be without money, but pensioners are subject to the imposition of an artificial 54-week year, and are deprived of money for two weeks. They are in limbo for an additional two weeks.

Would it be fair to put other people in that position, or should we vote for the clause? Will my hon. Friend deal with that when he has finished his remarks on the general election?

Mr. Davis

I had finished those remarks, perhaps because I was anticipating the outcome and assuming that it would be a Government whose policies I would support. A general election takes at least four weeks, so people would not be able to get money for a month or more.

12.30 pm

Mr. Cryer

I was suggesting only that the Government had put people in the artificial position of being deprived of money by creating a 54-week year. I was not suggesting that they would be deprived only of two weeks' money. If we opposed clause 1, for what period does my hon. Friend consider that people would be deprived of money?

Mr. Davis

On the surface, for a period of at least three to four weeks. It could be more. However, there is a Civil Contingencies Fund.

Not only the people who depend on supplementary benefits would be affected. Those administering the DHSS would be. It would also precipitate a wave of bankruptcies in industry. It would be no good the Government's paying later if firms had in the meantime gone bankrupt. We should consider the consequences of that for trade union members.

The Civil Contingencies Fund was raised in 1977 by, I believe, the present Under-Secretary of State for Trade. The hon. Gentleman spoke at great length, and he was not interrupted as often as I have been today. The problem is that we do not know how much money is in that fund. I assume that it is not a bottomless purse. That knowledge may assist us in voting, and I hope that the Minister can tell us how much the fund contains. It is the hon. Gentleman's task to explain the consequences of the clause being defeated. No Government Back-Bench Member appears willing to support the Bill.

Mr. Cryer

This is one of the grey areas of Parliament. We recognise that people depend on the money and small firms might be in difficulties if payments were withheld, but we wish to scrutinise the figures. The matter demonstrates how much small firms depend on Government support. Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be useful to divide the House in order to break with these patently daft traditions. It is a convention that we cannot talk about detailed expenditure in the Consolidated Fund Bill Committee, because that has been so since 1888. However, Parliament has to register a marker in the evolutionary process of change, which is necessary if we are to have proper accountability, bearing in mind the changes that have taken place since the nineteenth century, when the Consolidated Fund Bill was a nominal matter. Very much larger sums are paid out today.

Mr. Davis

I understand the purpose of my hon. Friend's intervention. He is making a strong case for saying "Let us have a general election to bring the matter to a head and then we shall sort out how Parliament discusses public expenditure." The end result would be a much better system for the scrutiny of public expenditure in the detail that my hon. Friend and I would like, but the weakness in his argument is that those who would pay the price for that reform, desirable though it is, would be the people who had not received their money in the meantime.

Mr. Skinner

I am listening very closely to my hon. Friend's argument. He has gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. It is whether we should defeat the Government and prevent this £41,000 million, this huge sum of taxpayers' money—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

It is £42,000 million.

Mr. Skinner

It is nearly £42,000 million. My hon. Friend's argument, as I have grasped it, is that people will go without money. I do not think that would be the case. We know that there is a Civil Contingencies Fund. We are not too sure how much is in it. There might be more or less in it than some of us think. But that is not the argument for me. I know that the Government would attempt to reverse the position before the end of the long recess. They would attempt to put matters right. My hon. Friend will recall that in 1976 some of us refused to support the Labour Government when they were cutting public expenditure—

The Chairman

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not in order on clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Skinner

My point is that my hon. Friend wants to vote for clause 1 stand part because he is naturally worried about people not getting the money that they need—for example, the unemployed, whose numbers are growing massively, and nearly 10 million old-age pensioners who need every penny that they can get, including those two weeks that they will miss as a result of the Government inventing this new calendar.

The Chairman

Order. Would the hon. Gentleman care to seek to make a speech on that matter—

Mr. Skinner

Yes.

The Chairman

—when the time comes? At the moment we are listening to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner

My hon. Friend ought to understand that the situation will not be as dramatic as he thinks. The Government will not allow this period. They might if they think that they can inflict harm on old-age pensioners, but they have a majority. They would come back. Therefore, it is not as dramatic as all that. But look at the prize. The prize would be that—

The Chairman

Order. We really cannot have interventions of this length.

Mr. Skinner

It always happens to me.

Mr. Davis

I thought that my hon. Friend at the end of his intervention was beginning to talk himself round to my point of view. In his opening remarks he seemed to be suggesting that the Government would put everything right. That is to display for the second time today an amazing degree of faith in the Government. There is no difference between us in our feelings for the people who would suffer as a result of defeating the clause. There may be some difference between us, certainly between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, on whether it is worth paying that price. The dilemma which faces people who want change is whether to press for that change to a point where they cause damage in the short term because in the long term the price is worth it. There is a great deal of truth in the old saying that in the long term everybody is dead. People live in the short term. We must be careful about defeating the clause. We must be given a firm assurance by the Minister—

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Could you seek the necessary information and tell us what has happened to the Government? Could it be that they are at this moment having a special meeting somewhere—a meeting of the 1922 Committee, or whatever it may be? Conservative Members have left the Chamber. This is important. My hon. Friend is making some valid points and all the Tory Members have gone. I know that they are not all lawyers, but a hell of a lot are. Where are they?

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I noticed in the Members' Lobby a most unusual sight, because the Whips were together and were holding a sort of meeting to d;scuss tactics.

The Chairman

Order. What goes on in the Lobby or anywhere else in this building other than in this Chamber is not a matter for me.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis

Just a moment; we must get on. I ask for your assistance, Mr. Weatherill. I am trying to reach the main point of my speech.

The Chairman

Order. Let us return to reality. The hon. Gentleman is about to reach the main point of his speech. That must be concerned only with whether the clause should stand part of the Bill and should contain no detail whatever.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis

No, I shall not give way. I think that I shall incur your displeasure, Mr. Weatherill, if I keep giving way to my hon. Friends. I accept what you have said. We must talk about clause 1, which seeks to make it possible—because it uses the word "may" rather than "shall"—for the Government to make a certain sum of money available. I have discussed the effect of not voting for the clause.

Mr. Dubs

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis

I shall give way in a moment. I am concerned about the effect of not voting for the clause. That is why I have spoken, because I am anxious to persuade my hon. Friends—contrary to the view enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West—that it would be unwise to vote against clause 1. [Interruption.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that he needs a lot of persuasion. I am trying in my humble way to do the job that should be done by Conservative Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the fact that they are not in the Chamber. Indeed, if it goes on much longer like this I shall have to suggest to my hon. Friends that we cross the Chamber and occupy the Conservative Back Benches, because we seem to be doing the Government's job for them, general election or no general election. I would not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to come with me because I think that he is happier on this side of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South was anxious to intervene. As I have not given way often to him, I shall make an exception in his case.

Mr. Dubs

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. I asked earlier about the implications in the event of clause 1 being defeated and how that would affect the Bill. My hon. Friend answered in a very broad sense about a delay in payments to pensioners and so on, consequent upon a general election. Perhaps he will answer my question in a more limited sense. Let us suppose that the Committee were to defeat clause 1, with the rest of the Bill being allowed to stand as it is. What will be the implications then? Would the schedules fall? Does my hon. Friend think that the Government would have to withdraw the entire Bill and present another one, or does he think that the Bill as it stands, without clause 1, could continue?

Mr. Davis

That is the problem. As I understand it, the Bill cannot continue without clause 1. If I am mistaken, I hope that the Financial Secretary will intervene and correct me. It is my understanding that without clause 1 the Bill is neutered. That is why I urge my hon. Friends not to take the dramatic, drastic and extreme step of voting against clause 1.

Mr. Cryer

rose—

Mr. Davis

The schedules would not fall. Schedules A and B relate to clause 2, and schedule C relates to clause 3. Therefore, they are not affected by clause 1. However, without clause 1 the whole purpose of the Bill is frustrated. In view of the damage that that would inflict, and the problems that that would pose for other people who are not concerned in the arguments of the main political parties in this country, that would be a mistake.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis

This is a balance which my hon. Friends must strike for them- selves. On the one hand, they can follow the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, who is so concerned about aspects that I shall not go into because they would be out of order as they involve the detail and not the principle of the expenditure of £42,000 million. He was so concerned about those and other matters that he was prepared not only to speak against clause 1 but to pursue his opposition to the Government to the point of going into the Lobby and voting against the clause. That is what concerns me. That would be a mistake.

12.45 pm

Mr. Cryer

You very kindly mentioned the note of reality, Mr. Weatherill, and the way in which the speech had to be balanced. When we talk about voting against the clause, the likelihood is that we shall be defeated and the clause will remain part of the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend look at the reality of this and combine his remarks about the undesirability of the position that would arise if the clause were to be defeated with the desirability of striking a balance on whether we should vote, together with the necessity to establish the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill and the clause purely as a nominal procedural gesture? We could perhaps register our opposition by not declaring Tellers, so that we combine the best of both worlds.

Will my hon. Friend give his views, in relation to what he has just said about the removal of the clause, on the possibility of retaining it but emphasising our concern that the scrutiny is grossly inadequate?

Mr. Davis

My concern throughout has been to persuade my hon. Friends not to press their opposition to the Government in all sorts of matters, not least of them the Housing Bill, to the point at which they vote against clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Winnick

Persuade us.

Mr. Davis

I accept full responsibility for my failure if I have not persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I have done my best to persuade him. Perhaps he was not here at the beginning of my speech.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I came in to hear this brief speech, Mr. Weatherill, because I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was about to put the Government's case. He has done that very effectively. Being a lawyer by training, he always puts his arguments in a very erudite way, as compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is tautologous on many occasions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford referred to the sum of £42,000 million. I understood him to be arguing that this represented a 33 per cent. increase and that therefore it was an increase in public expenditure which must be borne in mind in relation to an inflation rate of 20 per cent. I am using my hon. Friend's words when I say that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. Skinner

That was my point.

Dr. Clark

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made the point originally but my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford was not able to develop it fully because there was, I think, a point of order.

Mr. Davis

I have tried to convince my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I have not been able to do so.

Before I deal with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. He suggested that we should vote against the clause without really meaning it. But if one injures someone, it is no good then saying "I did not really mean it, I was trying to get at the Government." We should be saying, in effect, to people throughout the length and breadth of Britain that we did not really mean to deprive them of money to which they are entitled—money on which they depend.

We are trying to persuade or to press the Government to take some action or other. I do not think that people would understand. If I were one of those affected in that way, I would see my own interest as having been dramatically and seriously affected. I would be concerned only with the fact that I did not have any money for a week, a fortnight, three weeks or a month—or perhaps until after a general election.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) to address his mind to another aspect. He said earlier, quite rightly, that the House normally makes this a perfunctory occasion. Does he think that the appropriation of £42 billion, which is roughly the sum in clause 1, is such an occasion? Does he agree that if the House treats in a perfunctory manner the appropriation of such a sum it is not discharging adequately its duty to the taxpayer?

I understand my hon. Friend's arguments for not voting against clause 1. However, it would be by taking a drastic action such as that that this unsatisfactory perfunctory business of nodding through £42 billion of taxpayers' money could be brought to an end. Following that the House might give its mind to devising a sensible, responsible and proper method of appropriation for supply. Will he address his mind to that?

The Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) will not answer the first and last parts of the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). It is not in order to debate procedure during this debate. The Question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Davis

I accept your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. We have been over the ground earlier. I think that you gave a similar ruling at an earlier stage. I intended not to succumb to the temptation presented by my hon. Friend's intervention. I am rather puzzled because you told me, Mr. Weatherill, not to respond to the first or last parts of his intervention. I did not notice the middle part and so I cannot respond to that either.

Mr. Skinner

The middle part of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was about nodding things through. It is well known that Governments do not want to be accused of nodding things through. The Opposition are helping them today—

The Chairman

Order. That is exactly what I was saying the Committee cannot discuss.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The issue of nodding through is extremely important. A few years ago a Tory newspaper, the Daily Mail ran a story which said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), who was then Secretary of State for Industry, had nodded through moneys that were related to a transaction involving British Leyland. That created a storm. The matter was taken to court and the Daily Mail had to withdraw the allegation on the steps of the court. It did not even get in court. It was considered, whether in "Erskine May" or in any other May, to be a slight upon a Minister to nod something through. If it is right that a Minister can be slighted by a Tory newspaper in that way and can receive damages—as you will know, Mr. Weatherill, there were others involved—surely this Tory Government should pay attention to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley.

I shall come later to the point—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should raise these important issues—I agree that they are important—in the debate on procedure that will take place on Thursday.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have now reached an interesting development. It is now being suggested, Mr. Weatherill, that I can raise all these considerable issues about whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. You have said, Mr. Weatherill, that I can raise all these matters when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) has finished, or when other hon. Members have made their contributions. There are many points—

The Chairman

Order. I did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I said that he was discussing procedural matters, which are not in order in this debate, but which will be in order on Thursday.

Mr. Davis

I am beginning to think that unless we make some progress, we shall never reach that debate on Thursday. I have remembered the middle part of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). His point related to the fact that in order to pursue the aim—about which I do not wish to digress—of changing the procedure for voting public funds, we should vote against clause 1. I wish to persuade my hon. Friends that that is misguided. The effect of voting against clause 1 would be so serious, that although the aim, namely to improve the scrutiny of public expenditure, might be laudable, the damage done by voting against the clause would be extreme. Opposition to it should not be pursued to that extent.

Mr. Winnick

We are debating an important sum, namely, £42,000 million of public expenditure. I am sure that the Chair will say that it is out of order to discuss the procedure of Supply, and so on. However, no one can deny that that amount of money is substantial. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government and their supporters constantly urge greater scrutiny of public expenditure and say that it is of the greatest importance, there are only five Conservative Members in the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend have any idea why Government supporters pay so little attention to a matter of such crucial importance?

Mr. Davis

We must asume that the Government's supporters are not anxious for this large amount of money to be scrutinised. They are afraid that we might stray from the paths of order and discuss how the money is to be spent. Although that temptation is seductive, I shall resist it. The sum of money could be spent in many ways. My hon. Friend and I should like to discuss that. However, Conservative Members are probably not anxious to discuss the sum of money in detail or in total.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was correct to say that the theme behind the Conservative Party's campaign has been to scrutinise public expenditure and to reduce it.

In the past 12 months there has been an increase of 30 per cent. The amount has increased from £31,000 million to £42,000 million in 12 months. That is a substantial sum of money. It is true that part of that increase is due to inflation. However, that accounts for only 20 per cent. or 21 per cent., depending on when the figures were struck. That still leaves an unexplained increase of 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was right to draw attention to that point. It is strange that such an increase should be made by a party that pledged, when in opposition, to reduce public expenditure. We do not share that aim.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is not my hon. Friend worried that he has taken on the responsibility of putting the Government's case? The debate has shown that Conservative Members have refused to carry out their responsibility to sell the Government's policy to the House. We have all been elected, and I have always been led to believe that it was our role to stand LID and to debate the principal issues of the day. And yet once in a while the Government Benches are filled with hon. Members—

1 pm

The Chairman

Order. The debate has nothing to do with the policies of the Government. It has to do only with whether—[Interruption] Order. The debate has to do only with whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I was simply suggesting that there is a duty on Government spokesmen and Government Back-Benchers such as the hon. Members for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) and for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), to seize the opportunity to debate this central issue which has a vital effect on their constituents. A large amount of money for the British Steel Corporation is wrapped up indirectly in the figures. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe would have taken on the responsibility—

The Chairman

Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

This is a point of order. Government Members should take the opportunity of defending the Government, instead of leaving it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) who, acting valiantly, has been arguing the Government's case for almost two hours.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

A point of order has been raised. I shall deal with one hon. Member at a time. I can only repeat what I have said from the beginning, that this is a narrow debate. I am bound by the rules of order. I have no authority to change the rules. If hon. Members wish them to be changed they have the opportunity in procedure debates. Now we may discuss only whether the clause stand part of the Bill. It is not in order to discuss individual sums or topics.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Another point of order?

Mr. Mikardo

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I found it difficult to believe my ears when I heard you say that the policies of the Government are not relevant to the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

Order. I did not say that. I said that it is not in order to debate the policies of the Government. They might be relevant, but it is not in order to debate them.

Mr. Mikardo

That is precisely the point. If it is not in order to debate policies, that can only be because they are not relevant to the question. It is in order to debate anything which is relevant to the question. The clause relates to a sum of nearly £42 billion. That does not exist in a vacuum. That sum is allocated in order to pursue the Government's programme. It is the ammunition for implementation of the Government's policies. How on earth can it be said that it is out of order to discuss those policies, in the implementation of which the money provided under the clause is used?

The Chairman

It is out of order because "Erskine May" lays down that it is out of order. We are bound by the rules of the House. Do hon. Members wish me to repeat the rule? "Erskine May" states: On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed".

Mr. Cryer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. "Erskine May" does not rule out the possibility of discussing policy relating to the global sum. The £42 billion is not in a vacuum. It is spent on a number of items according to the priorities of the Government—and that means according to their policies.

On page 747 of Erskine May, in the section dealing with procedure in Committee on the Consolidated Fund, it is stated: According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate. The Government came into office on a promise to scrutinise expenditure. The points of order concern the fact that the Government have clearly failed in their promise because Conservative Back-Benchers are not raising any points of scrutiny. It is being left to Labour Members to do so. The Minister has sat on the Front Bench for two hours like an inert sack in a linen suit—indeed, the linen looked like a sack. Have you, Mr. Weatherill, been notified by a Minister that the Government will elaborate on the scrutiny of public expenditure as a result of pressure from Labour Benches? It is an important point.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now come into the Chamber. I assume that Ministers are not operating a shift system, because they did not envisage this shift taking place. I think that the Chief Secretary has joined us as a result of our strong representations. Will he give us a full explanation of the policies that lie behind the provision of £42 billion? Have the representations made in the debate resulted in the Government doing anything to exercise their promises to scrutinise public expenditure?

The Chairman

It is unfair for hon. Members to raise points of order about which the Chair can do nothing. I am bound by the rules of order that presently exist. There is to be an important debate on procedure, and on the scrutiny of moneys, on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise his points in that important debate. I accept his point that that may be inadequate, but he should make his points then and not on this narrow clause stand part debate.

Mr. Cryer

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The debate has lasted for some time and there is a suspicion—which may be misconceived—that you are prepared to accept a closure motion. For that reason, and also because the debate has lasted for two hours, it would not be untoward if a closure motion was accepted.

Mr. Skinner

I am still waiting to speak.

Mr. Cryer

If you, Mr. Weatherill, have promised my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he could speak, that clarifies the position. Will a Minister speak? Have you received any indication of that?

The Chairman

I have not received any indication, and I do not need any indication. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to move the closure?

Mr. Christopher Price

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I want to clarify one of your rulings, as it raises an important point. You said that we cannot discuss certain matters because "Erskine May" lays down that we cannot do so. The edition of "Erskine May" from which we are working predates the important precedent of 1977. The House moves from precedent to precedent, rather like the English common law. In taking a decision about what is relevant in a debate, surely it is your task, Mr. Weatherill—and I bow to your knowledge of the Chair as I am a newcomer to being a chairman—to read "Erskine May" together with the precedent of 1977. I suggest that you read the two sets of precedents together rather than separately. We move from precedent to precedent. We have not yet got the next edition of "Erskine May". It may be that the learned Clerk is already drafting the next edition. However, we need to take into consideration the precedents already established.

This is a very serious point. May I have it confirmed that it is not proper for the Chair, in making rulings, to rely wholly on the body of precedents established in "Erskine May"? I suggest that the Chair should have regard to precedents such as the 1977 one which have arisen in the period between the publication of editions of "Erskine May".

The Chairman

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is a new but excellent Chairman of Committees, and perhaps I can help him. I have before me the ruling of 28 July 1977, and it may help the House if I read it: The Chairman then ruled that it was not possible on clause 1 to engage in a general discussion about the state of the economy, and the clause deals only with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund", and he reiterated the ruling which I quoted a moment or two ago and, I think, eight or nine times previously in this debate.

Mr. Davis

I must say that I began to worry a little in the middle of that point of order when it sounded as though my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West were falling out about the earlier closure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West advanced as his main reason for voting against clause 1 the fact that the Government had moved the closure on Second Reading. Therefore, it ill becomes my hon. Friends to talk about a closure now.

Mr. Skinner

That is right.

Mr. Davis

There is a precedent. Perhaps, Mr. Weatherill, I may refer you back to 1977. I have in mind not only the ruling on that occasion but another precedent established to which you will see reference made in column 1372 of Hansard for 28 July 1977. I invite your attention to the intervention made by the then Leader of the Opposition, which was followed by a statement by the Prime Minister.

I do not presume to suggest that the humble efforts of my hon. Friends and I are likely to produce a statement from the Prime Minister or from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I do not want any elaboration of the Government's policies on expenditure. But if there are other matters on which Opposition Members wish to have some elaboration and if someone on behalf of the Government wishes to communicate to the Committee either by a statement from the Dispatch Box or through you, Mr. Weatherillor—or, for that matter, through the usual channels—that there will be some movement in other matters in which the Opposition are extremely interested, it may lead to an earlier conclusion of this debate.

One of my hon. Friends referred to the failure of the Government to meet their responsibility to scrutinise public expenditure, to explain to their supporters in the country how they could allow to be approved on the nod a sum of £42,000 million, and how they squared that with all that they said in the past about the need to reduce public expenditure.

Mr. Winnick

My hon. Friend will have noticed that sitting on the Treasury Bench is the Chief Secretary, and no one is more concerned about public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman must be given credit for his concern about public expenditure. I am sure that if he were sitting on the Opposition Back Benches he would be extremely concerned to scrutinise the expenditure of £42,000 million which is involved here.

Is it not rather odd that the Chief Secretary seems reluctant to intervene in order to give us an indication of why such a vast sum of public money should be spent? It may be that the money should be spent. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and I might agree that more money should be spent. Has my hon. Friend any view on the Chief Secretary's reluctance to intervene?

1.15 pm

Mr. Davis

At least the Chief Secretary is here. Earlier, we had a junior Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench. It is a failure of responsibility on the part of Government supporters not to explain why they believe that the sum should be increased from £31,000 million to £42,000 million.

My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has been patient. He indicated to me some time ago that he was anxious to intervene and I have not yet given way to him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

My hon. Friend deprecates himself too much as a humble Back Bencher. Is he aware that he is standing in the same place as did his distinguished predecessor who discussed the overall total of public expenditure on a number of occasions and suggested on one famous occasion that 61 per cent. of the nation's wealth going in public expenditure would be slavery, while 59 per cent. would be freedom? Only a little while afterwards, it was discovered by the Treasury that the percentages—

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a tempting point, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) should not take it up.

Mr. Lyon

I am sorry, Mr. Weatherill—

The Chairman

Order. That matter is totally out of order. It has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Lyon

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. That ruling is surely out of line with the indication that you gave at the beginning of the debate and the indication in "Erskine May". We are talking about the global total of public expenditure contained in clause 1. That amount has to be discussed in the context of the total amount of wealth in the country. There is no other way in which there can be any meaningful discussion of the subject.

If a figure of £42,000 million is regarded as being preferable to £31,000 million, that must be in relation to total GNP. The arguments can be produced only in relation to the total wealth of the country.

If we are talking about global amounts rather than amounts for individual services, we must be considering the global amount that the country can afford to pay in public expenditure rather than the the amount that it spends in private consumption. The balance is the only thing that we can talk about. There is no other meaning to the global figure.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber when I ruled on this very matter about two hours ago. The House made a decision on 6 June about the sums that we are discussing and agreed that they should be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It is, therefore, out of order for the Committee to attempt to go behind that decision of the House, which is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. The hon. Member for Stechford is doing very well without all these interventions from his hon. Friends.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wish to raise with you statements made by different occupants of the Chair. Two or three hours ago, you stated that these matters were approved in Tune. I asked whether, in the light of the inflation in the intervening period, the figures could be correct. Mr. Crawshaw, your successor in the Chair, challenged me and said that the decision was taken not in June but on 31 July. You, Mr. Weatherill, have referred to June again. The House has a right to know which date is correct.

The Chairman

I apologise. I should have said 31 July. After a late night and with lots of papers on the Table in front of me, I simply picked up the wrong one.

Mr. Mikardo

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. With great respect, may I ask whether you are not departing from the impartiality that the Chair always shows when you said that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was doing very well? Some of us are extremely angry with him because he is doing the Government's job for them. If I succeed in catching your eye, I shall give him a bellyful. That is a matter between my hon. Friend and I. Is it not wrong, with all respect, for the Chair to intervene in a difference of that sort and to give the accolade of its approval to someone who is stimulating the strong disapproval of some of his hon. Friends?

The Chairman

I hope that I shall always be impartial in my dealings with the House. I was seeking to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) are much more in order than any of the interventions with which he is being helped.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

In pursuing my previous point of order, Mr. Weatherill, I am not seeking to be unfair to the Chair. I press this matter seriously. If the argument about the clause is within order, we are talking about a global sum. You have said, Mr. Weatherill, that because we passed the global sum last night, we cannot talk about the method by which it is raised, its allocation or its relationship to the total economy. If we are allowed to talk about clause stand part at all, we are talking, surely, in relation to that global figure, whether that global figure is worthwhile and the justification for that global figure. It must be seen in relation to the totality of the wealth of the country. There can be no other way to discuss whether £42,000 million is a relevant figure unless you are to say that the only thing that can be discussed is whether it is an uprating for inflation in terms of the figure that prevailed last year. Surely, that figure, too, relates in some degree to the state of the economy.

I accept your ruling Mr. Weatherill, that we are not allowed to talk about the minutiae of detailed control of the economy and the Government's financial policy. Surely, however, if hon. Members are to discuss £42,000 million in any meaningful terms, we must be able to compare it with the global figure of the wealth of the economy and the difficulties that this will cause in relation to some other way of disposing of the wealth of the economy.

The Chairman

That has been the tenor of my rulings from the beginning. I am bound by the rules of the House. The rules say firmly that, in relation to the Consoldiated Fund, speeches will not be in order that are not directed towards the question of whether the clause stands part of the Bill. It is not in order to discuss detail. I am sorry and I fully understand the concern and, perhaps, the mystification of hon. Members, but it is a fact that only that particular matter can be discussed.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

You keep telling us, Mr. Weatherill, what we cannot discuss. I am not clear what we can discuss. In what sense can hon. Members talk about a global figure of public expenditure unless we can make some kind of comment? What can we say that is in order if it does not have some relationship to the total wealth of the country?

The Chairman

It is not for the Chair to tell hon. Members how to construct their speeches. It is the function of the Chair to call hon. Members to account if they stray or if they are out of order. That is what I am doing.

Mr. Davis

I should like to say, Mr. Weatherill, that I took in good part the compliment that you paid me that I had kept in order throughout my speech. It is a compliment that I shall treasure and tell my great grandchildren about. I am sorry to have earned the displeasure of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, but I am not going to deal with him. I am going to deal with the issue of the £42,000 million.

Mr. Mikardo

I am most disappointed in my hon. Friend. He has always had not only my great regard but even my affection. I am disappointed that he should take it upon himself at great length today to advocate the policies of the Government rather than the policies of his own party. As I said in an intervention earlier, we have had a "gang of three" doing that; now he is a gang of one doing it. He must stop.

Mr. Davis

I must ask my hon. Friend to listen more closely to what I am saving. I realise that it is difficult for him because of the constant interruptions, but he will not have heard me advocate the Government's policies, because it would be out of order to advocate the policies either of the Government or of the Opposition. I am addressing myself solely and entirely to clause 1 and to the sum of £42,000 million contained in it.

I must defend myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover took umbrage at my jocular description of him as being moderate and kind in his treatment of the Government. I take great exception to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, whose affection I have always reciprocated, describing me as advocating the policies of the Government. What I have advocated is that the Opposition should not press their opposition to the Government to the point at which we vote against this sum of £42,000 million. That has been the whole purpose of my speech today.

This is a matter of balance, as I said. I recognise the strength of the feelings of some of my hon. Friends who object to that sum being voted in this way in total for the Government's use. But there is a serious point on which I want to press the Government. Although I will not take my opposition to the point of voting against clause 1, there is a matter on which a Treasury Minister should explain the effect of this sum of money.

There is precedent for raising this point, as you will know, Mr. Weatherill, because it was raised at lenth by Mr. Gaitskell in 1961. That is the inflationary, or perhaps deflationary, effect of this sum. My hon. Friend the Member for York was out of order when he referred to someone who used to sit in my seat. I am not quite clear whether he was referring to an hon. Member who used to sit in the place that I now occupy in the Chamber or to my predecessor in my constituency.

However, if it was the latter, and he was referring to Mr. Roy Jenkins, it is true, I think, that Mr. Jenkins once commented critically on the amount of Government expenditure, the share that it was taking of the GNP and the effect that that would have on the economy. Thus, although my hon. Friend may have been slightly out of order, he was also slightly in order drawing attention to that aspect of this £42,000 million.

I do not know—it is idle to speculate—what opinion my predecessor may have about this sum of money. I can only reassure my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow—that, on this point as on many others, I disagree with Mr. Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Dubs

Would my hon. Friend direct his attention to another aspect of this sum of £42,000 million? That is the secrecy which surrounds it. I appreciate that we are not allowed to discuss in detail the component elements of that sum, but is he aware that our responsibility to scrutinise this sum is made much more difficult because the Government Departments concerned, which have made decisions about these sums, are being totally secretive about their intentions and that we cannot make a judgment about the total sum because we cannot make a sensible judgment about the component parts?

Would my hon. Friend comment therefore on the tendency of Departments and Ministers to be far too secretive about their proposals, so that we cannot do our job as Members of Parliament in scrutinising public expenditure?

1.30 pm

Mr. Davis

I might agree with my hon. Friend if the clause said simply that The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 a sum at their discretion.

But that is not the wording of the Bill. The Bill says that the sum is £41,601 million and more. So it is not secret. The Government put in the total. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the detail provided. It is not totally secret. There is detail which we cannot discuss now. The detail is contained in schedules (A) and (B) attached to the Bill.

No doubt when we reach that point in our Committee stage there will be a possibility of discussing in detail some of those sums of money. I am not quite sure how far we shall be able to go at that stage. I shall take your advice, Mr. Weatherill, on that matter at that point in time. I am not asking you to advise me now, because I think that it is wrong to do as Conservative Members did in 1977—to seek to delay the Committee's proceedings by raising at the very beginning points of order lasting an hour about what they would or would not be allowed to discuss.

We shall have to suck it and see—a well known phrase used by the Treasury, as many of my hon. Friends know. We have present the "Suck it and see Minister" who is to reply. I think that the Chief Secretary was the "Suck it and see Minister"—no, he is shaking his head. It was the Financial Secretary who said that we should suck it and see.

Mr. Cryer

Perhaps I may confirm to my hon. Friend, just before he starts on the main body of his speech—I hope that he is coming to the end of the preliminary part—that it was the Financial Secretary, the man in the linen suit, who has developed this sophisticated and complex philosophy of the Government enshrined in the phrase "Suck it and see".

Mr. Davis

I am sorry that I fell into the trap of using that phrase.

Mr. Jopling

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 96.

Division No. 444]	AYES	[1.33 pm
Aitken, Jonathan	Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Biggs-Davison, John
Ancratn, Michael	Bell, Sir Ronald	Blackburn, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Bendall, Vivian	Boscawen, Hon Robert
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)	Benyon, w. (Buckingham)	Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Bevan, David Gilroy	Bright, Graham
Banks, Robert	Biffen, Rt Hon John	Brinton, Tim
Brittan, Leon	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Pollock, Alexander
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hooson, Tom	Porter, George
Brooke, Hon Peter	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Price, Sir David
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Prior, Rt Hon James
Browne, John (Winchester)	Hurd, Hon Douglas	Proctor, K. Harvey
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Rathbone, Tim
Buck, Antony	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Rhodes James, Robert
Budgen, Nick	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bulmer, Esmond	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Rifkind, Malcolm
Butcher, John	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Kershaw, Anthony	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Kilfedder, James A.	Rost, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	King, Rt Hon Tom	Royle, Sir Anthony
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Knox, David	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Channon, Paul	Lang, Ian	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Chapman, Sydney	Lawrence, Ivan	Scott, Nicholas
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Lawson, Nigel	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Cope, John	Lee, John	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Corrie, John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills]
Costain, Sir Albert	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Silvester, Fred
Cranborne, Viscount	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sims, Roger
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Luce, Richard	Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Dorrell, Stephen	Lyell, Nicholas	Speller, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Macfarlane, Neil	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Dover, Denshore	MacGregor, John	Squire, Robin
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Stainton, Keith
Durant, Tony	Madel, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
Eggar, Timothy	Major, John	Stanley, John
Elliott, Sir William	Marlow, Tony	Stevens, Martin
Eyre, Reginald	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Fairgrieve, Russell	Marten, Neil (Banbury)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Mates, Michael	Thompson, Donald
Fell, Anthony	Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Thornton, Malcolm
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Mayhew, Patrick	Trippler, David
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Viggers, Peter
Fry, Peter	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Waddington, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wakeham, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Moate, Roger	Waldegrave, Hon William
Goodlad, Alastair	Monro, Hector	Waker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Gow, Ian	Moore, John	Waller, Gary
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Ward, John
Gray, Hamish	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Mudd, David	Wheeler, John
Gummer, John Selwyn	Murphy, Christopher	Whitney, Raymond
Haselhurst, Alan	Myles, David	Wickenden, Keith
Hawkins, Paul	Neale, Gerrard	Wiggin, Jerrry
Hawksley, Warren	Neubert, Michael	Winterton, Nicholas
Hayhoe, Barney	Newton, Tony	Wolfson, Mark
Heddle, John	Normanton, Tom	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Henderson, Barry	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Younger, Rt Hon George
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hicks, Robert	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Hill, James	Pawsey, James	Mr. Anthony Berry.
NOES
Allaun, Flank	English, Michael	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Alton, David	Evans, John (Newton)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester south)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Field, Frank	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fitt, Gerard	Mikardo, Ian
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Freud, Clement	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Beith, A. J.	Graham, Ted	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Mitchll, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Hardy, Peter	Parker, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)	Harrison, Rt Hon Water	Pavitt, Laurie
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Haynes, Frank	Penhaligon, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Carmichael, Neil	Home Robertson, John	Prescott, John
Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)	Homewood, William	Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Hooley, Frank	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Coleman, Donald	Howells, Geraint	Sandelson, Neville
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Sever, John
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Sheerman, Barry
Cryer, Bob	Kerr, Russell	Short, Mrs Renée
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Kinnock, Neil	Silverman, Julius
Deakins, Eric	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Skinner, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Litherland, Robert	Spearing, Nigel
Dewar, Donald	Lyon, Alexander (York)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dixon, Donald	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Stallard, A. W.
Dormand, Jack	McNally, Thomas	Strang, Gavin
Dubs, Alfred	McNamara, Kevin	Straw, Jack
Duffy, A. E. P.	McTaggart, Bob	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth	McWilliam, John	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Marks, Kenneth	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)	Young, David (Bolton East)
Watkins, David	Winnick, David	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Welsh, Michael	Woolmer, Kenneth	Mr. James Hamilton and
Whitehead, Phillip	Wright, Sheila	Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Winnick

On a point of Mr. Weatherill.

Division No. 445]	AYES	[1.45 pm
Adley, Robert	Gow, Ian	Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Alton, David	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Ancram, Michael	Gray, Hamish	Pawsey, James
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Penhaligon, David
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Pollock, Alexander
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Gummer, John Selwyn	Porter, George
Banks, Robert	Haselhurst, Alan	Price, Sir David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hawkins, Paul	Prior, Rt Hon James
Beith, A J.	Hawksley, Warren	Proctor, K. Harvey
Bendall, Vivian	Hayhoe, Barney	Rhodes James, Robert
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Heddle, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Berry, Hon Anthony	Henderson, Barry	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hicks, Robert	Rifkind, Malcolm
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Hill, James	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Blackburn, John	Hooson, Tom	Rost, Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Howells, Geraint	Royle, Sir Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Bright, Graham	Hurd, Hon Douglas	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Brinton, Tim	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Brittan, Leon	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills>
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Silvester, Fred
Brooke, Hon Peter	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Sims, Roger
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Kershaw, Anthony	Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton>
Browne, John (Winchester)	Kilfedder, James A.	Speller, Tony
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick	King, Rt Hon Tom	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Buck, Antony	Lang, Ian	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Budgen, Nick	Lawson, Nigel	Squire, Robin
Bulmer, Esmond	Le Merchant, Spencer	Stainton, Keith
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stevens, Martin
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Luce, Richard	Stradling Thomas, J.
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Lyell, Nicholas	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S).
Chapman, Sydney	Macfarlane, Neil	Thompson, Donald
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	McNair-wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Thornton, Malcolm
Cope, John	Madel, David	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Corrie, John	Major, John	Trippier, David
Costain, Sir Albert	Marlow, Tony	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Cranborne, Viscount	Marten, Neil (Banbury)	Viggers, Peter
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Mates, Michael	Waddington, David
Dorrell, Stephen	Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Wakeham, John
Dover, Denshore	Mayhew, Patrick	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Waller, Gary
Durant, Tony	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Ward, John
Eggar, Timothy	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Elliott, Sir William	Moate, Roger	Wheeler, John
Eyre, Reginald	Monro, Hector	Whitney, Raymond
Fairgrieve, Russell	Moore, John	Wickenden, Keith
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Wiggin, Jerrry
Fell, Anthony	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Winterton, Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Mudd, David	Wolfson, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Murphy, Christopher	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Myles, David	Younger, Rt Hon George
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)	Neale, Gerrard
Freud, Clement	Neubert, Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fry, Peter	Normanton, Tom	Mr. John MacGregor and
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Mr. Tony Newton.
Garel-Jones, Tristan

NOES
	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
	Mr. Ian Mikardo and
	Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman

Order. I must put the Question on clause 1 stand part before I take points of order.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 1.

Mr. Winnick

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am concerned that the closure was moved when only two hon. Members had had the opportunity of putting their arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was trying to persuade us why we should vote for clause 1. Some of us were by no means persuaded that we should do so. My hon. Friend did his best to explain why we should vote for the clause. It seems unfortunate, to say the least, that my hon. Friend, because of the action of the Government Chief Whip, did not have the opportunity of pursuing his argument.

I believe that on such an important matter, involving nearly £42,000 million, there should be a proper opportunity to debate the matter. I do not propose to go into the rights or wrongs of the procedure on which there were points of order earlier, because that would be wrong. This is a genuine point of order. I believe that it was wrong of the Government Chief Whip to move the closure when only two hon. Members had spoken and, moreover, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford had not completed his argument. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to debate the Bill and that the Government will not be impatient to move the closure and make a mockery of our procedure. I hope that you will rule accordingly.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order. Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that a few hours ago, when we were listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) outlining the reasons why we should vote in the way that he was recommending, you indicated, when I was making some interventions, that I would get a chance to put forward my long—or short—arguments whether or not clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is misled. I said that the hon. Gentleman might be able to present a certain argument on Thursday, not today.

Mr. Skinner

My other point of order concerns another matter, which needs great clarification. At the end of every day, there is an Adjournment debate. An Adjournment debate takes place for the last half-hour. Sometimes it can be longer than that, if the business of the House collapses earlier. I note that the Clerk of the House is whispering in your ear to put you wise on everything. I have brought all the relevant documents in order that we may get the position properly clarified.

On 16 November 1979 the matter of the Adjournment arose out of an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to get a second Adjournment debate when the business was in a state of collapse. The House was finishing the Report stage of a Bill before 10 o'clock. The Government were in a state of collapse, as they have been today, as evidenced by the way in which they lost control of the proceedings. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said that he wanted an Adjournment debate. A common feature of our procedure is that second, and possibly third, Adjournment debates are agreed when that position arises. As a result, Mr. Speaker came into the matter on several occasions, and finally at column 1661—

The Chairman

Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise a point of order about the Adjournment in the middle of proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I shall take the points of order relating to the Adjournment when the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill are finished. I should like to rule on the first point of order.

Mr. Skinner

rose—

2 pm

The Chairman

Order. It is a difficult judgment to make whether or not to accept the closure motion. My feeling was that, although only two hon. Members had spoken, one of them for well over two hours, the interventions that had taken place—I think that hon. Members who are present will fully acknowledge this—were more in the nature of speeches than interventions.

Mr. Skinner

On the question of the Adjournment, Mr. Weatherill, I think that we may be at cross-purposes. I do not want to be called out today. It has been a better day for the Opposition than many days recently, and we should not have a big row. I was trying to explain that as the occupant of the Chair you will no doubt be interested in what Mr. Speaker said on 16 November 1979 regarding Adjournment debates.

The Chairman

I would be interested, but not now. I have no jurisdiction over Adjournment debates. That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker. I remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that at present we are in Committee. Therefore, the point that he raises is not a question that we can discuss now.

Mr. Skinner

I must insist, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman

Order. I shall not take any further points of order relating to the Adjournment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Your ruling a moment ago that you accepted the closure motion because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) had spoken for about two and a half hours is a serious ruling about the capacity of hon. Members to put their case fairly. You will recollect that in the nineteenth century Mr. Gladstone, after he resigned as Prime Minister, came to the House to make a speech on a matter that he considered of such overwhelming importance that he abandoned the leadership of the Liberal Party—a thing that he was wise to do—in order to raise it. The issue related to the Welsh disestablishment measure, and he spoke for five and a half hours on that occasion. Mr. Speaker at the time did not interpose in that speech in order to indicate that it was an inapproprate thing to do, or that it was in any way out of order. My hon. Friend spoke only for two and a half hours.

It therefore seems that in exercising your discretion to accept the closure motion, Mr. Weatherill, you were at any rate going against the precedents over the years in saying that there had been adequate discussion, because one hon. Member, and only one, had spoken for two and a half hours. My hon. Friend prevented me from getting in in order to explain more fully my point about Mr. Roy Jenkins. He also prevented the Chief Secretary to the Treasury from explaining much more fully the whole issue of whether the sum allocated in clause 1 ought ever to have been allocated in the first place. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that anything like £42,000 million ought to have been allocated. He was actually overruled by the wets in the Cabinet. It was, therefore, important that he should put his point of view, perhaps at three and a half hours length, in order that we could fully understand what his point of view was.

Surely the point of order is that hon. Members are entitled to speak for as long as they wish, unless we use the 10-minute rule which applies in Second Reading debates. Surely it cannot be an adequate answer to suggest that the matter has been fully discussed when only one hon. Member has spoken, albeit for rather longer than is our wont now, because other hon. Members are not then entitled to put their point of view.

Several hon. Members

rose—

The Chairman

Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I did not decide whether we should move on to the next clause. I put that matter to the Committee, and the Committee decided it. Had the Committee felt that it had not had adequate time to discuss the matter, no doubt it would have come to a different decision. My function is to ensure that when we are debating a clause we remain in order. That is what I was seeking to ensure. I repeat that in my judgment we had had an adequate debate on the clause.

Mr. Mikardo

You referred to the exercise of your judgment, Mr. Weatherill, in accepting the motion for the closure. In an earlier observation you drew attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) had spoken for a very long time. I put it to you that it is precisely because he had spoken for a very long time that it was not altogether appropriate, if I may suggest it, that the debate should have been brought to an end then.

What has happened is that we have had two speeches—one of about 15 or 20 minutes on one side of the argument and one of more than two hours on the other side of the argument. That being so, I should have thought that there was a reasonable case for calling at least one other person to speak against the motion.

The Chairman

Order. It will be well within the recollection of the Committee that the interventions were to a large extent, if not wholly, out of order. I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) that his speech to a large extent was in order, and I paid tribute to him for that. In my judgment, the substance of the clause had been adequately discussed, and I am not prepared now to have a debate on the question whether I was right or wrong to make that decision. If the House thinks that I was wrong, it has its own sanctions.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Adjournment debates, generally speaking, take place after 10 pm. This is a very important point of order, Mr. Weatherill, and I should like you to listen to the point of order that I am about to make.

The Adjournment debate that was scheduled for today was withdrawn, and two of my hon. Friends who are present today went to the Table Office and tried to get a replacement Adjournment debate—a very decent and honourable thing to do. They were told that the ruling of 16 November 1979 related to 8 pm.

What we have to ask ourselves is why Mr. Speaker said 8 pm. It was, as he explained in his remarks to the House, because he wanted the Minister who was to reply to the Adjournment debate to have sufficient time to answer the debate. That is fair. He made that point. I shall not read it. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by doing so. [Interruption.] No, I think that at this point you, Mr. Weatherill, and I have a clear understanding about the matter.

Mr. Speaker made clear that the matter of concern was the time element. No Minister ought to be placed in the predicament of not being available and not having the necessary equipment to answer the Adjournment debate.

However, on the Consolidated Fund Bill we meet a different position altogether, because the Bill always lasts a long time—not as long as this time but certainly a long time.

Strictly speaking, the ruling about 8 pm means that no one can get an Adjournment debate—if the one on the Order Paper collapses or is withdrawn—after 8 pm. But I remind you, Mr. Weatherill, that, as I told the Committee about four hours ago, at 8 pm yesterday we were not yet discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill. We were still dis cussing the question of the Adjournment of the House.

When my hon. Friend withdrew his Adjournment debate there was plenty of time available for Ministers to obtain all the necessary research information and briefs to answer another Adjournment debate. When my two hon. Friends went to the Table Office there were many hours left before the end of the debate. It is an issue that needs serious consideration.

The Chairman

It may need serious consideration. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find another opportunity for that consideration to be brought to bear. This is not the correct opportunity. The granting of Adjournment debates is within the discretion of Mr. Speaker:and not for me. As I have already said, we are in Committee. This is not the appropriate moment to consider Adjournment debates. That is an issue that must be considered at some other time.

Mr. Jim Marshall

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It is related to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

Is that in order?

Mr. Marshall

I wish that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has been in the Chamber for only a short time, would be quiet. He is more vociferous now than when the Committee was considering whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—

The Chairman

Order. If the hon. Member's point of order is concerned with Adjournment debates, let me make it clear that I am not taking any further points of order on that subject. It is not a matter with which I can deal.

Mr. Cryer

At an earlier stage, Mr. Weatherill, when I was raising a point of order, I mentioned the Closure. I seek your guidance and clarification. When I mentioned the Closure, we all understood that the Government Chief Whip would try to make some nefarious move to interrupt the flow of debate. I was staggered when that move was made while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis), was on his feet and in the middle of his speech.

It is true that my hon. Friend's speech had been the subject of a number of interventions, but surely it is contrary to the usual practice to accept the Closure when an hon. Member is on his feet. It may be that you did not notice that, Mr. Weatherill. I make no criticism of the Chair, because to say the least, you have had a difficult few hours. However, it is important that an hon. Member should be allowed to conclude his speech while he is on his feet. It is a precedent that should clearly be nailed, so that the Closure is not moved in such a way in future. If that is not done, hon. Members who are still speaking will be gagged by the attitude of the Government Chief Whip.

The Chairman

I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Davis) felt that he was being gagged. I felt on a number of occasions that the hon. Gentleman had virtually completed his speech, when he was spurred on by interventions. I do not think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) need be concerned about gagging. There are many other opportunities on clauses 2, 3 and 4.