| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dangerous People with Severe Personality Disorder
Mr. John Heppell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the assessment and detention of dangerous people with severe personality disorder: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 88].
Supplementary Vote on Account 2000-01
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words '(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.--[Mr. McNulty.]
3.41 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): This matter caught my eye when it was first sneaked on to the Order Paper on Friday. When I read the motion, I began to muse on why the Government would wish to table something that contained the phrase
- shall apply as if the words
I am delighted that the procedures of the House allow for a full and proper debate on the matter which, as I hope to illustrate, is rather more important than the Government believe. The provenance of the motion is, I believe--subject to any correction--Standing Order No. 54, which states:
The motion that we are being asked to approve will probably allow later motions to slip through without proper debate. That cannot be acceptable. The helpful introductory note to the supplementary vote on account states:
Rather impertinently, it goes on:
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
A moment ago my right hon. Friend demanded a full debate on this matter, but has he noticed that the Leader of the House is not present, even though the motion is in her name? Her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is here, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that the debate continues for as long as is needed for the right hon. Lady to hop, skip and jump to the Chamber?
Mr. Forth:
My hon. Friend is normally a charitable man, but he is probably being a bit hard on the Government. I am a fair man, and must concede that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the vote on account motion has been tabled, has been courteous enough to attend. I am confident that he will give us a full reply to this debate. Perhaps the Leader of the House's deputy will tell us about the procedural matter, and then the Financial Secretary will tell us something about the substance of the motion.
The final page of the document from which I have quoted leaves me rather confused. The table listing the allocation to votes contains two salient figures. The first is the sum of £7 million, the existing provision voted on account. The second figure is the real substance of the matter--a sum of £1,000 that is to be added to the estimates.
Normally, I am prepared to go a long way to accept matters at their face value, but that second figure tries me to the limit. The Government have tabled a separate motion, under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 54 and 55, and it has appeared in the Order Paper on three successive days. When passed, it will secure for the Government additional funding of £1,000. That seems rather odd.
It is the small size of the Government's request that leads me to think that we should be a given a full explanation. I do not believe that the Treasury is that strapped for cash, as we are led to believe that it is rather flush right now. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will expatiate on the Government's war chest before he explains why he needs the House to vote him an extra £1,000.
I raise these questions because I do not know the answer to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he seeks to detain the House over a sum of £1,000. The footnote to the final table in the document states that the sum includes provision
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham):
I would like to refine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said. The House is indebted to him for his eagle-eyed attention to the business. At least four questions need to be specifically addressed.
First, footnote a. to the estimates tells us what is really happening. We are told that the sum shown includes provision for expenditure on the crown prosecution inspectorate. When the word "includes" appears, we can be quite sure that other matters may be included as well. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us whether any other items of expenditure fall outside that provided for under the crown prosecution inspectorate? Otherwise, the word "includes" would be otiose.
My second point is about substance. We are being asked to vote £1,000 on account of the crown prosecution inspectorate. I am the first to believe that the inspectorate is a very worthy organisation, but we are entitled to know a little more about it. How many officials are we sanctioning? What will be its annual cost? How many officials have so far been recruited? When does the expenditure start? If we are being asked to vote money, we have a right to answers to those questions.
Mr. Forth:
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not assume or expect that the expenditure has already started, since we have not yet approved it. Presumably, he is anticipating it as future expenditure.
Mr. Hogg:
I never make concessions of that kind in favour of the Government. My right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that Ministers will address it. We need to know how many staff there will be, when they will be recruited, and when the money will start to be spent.
Mr. Bercow:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a matter of legitimate concern to the House if, in anticipation of the likely approval of the sum of money, applications for staff had already been received, or advertisements in pursuit of staff had been made by the inspectorate? If the House decided not to approve the sum in question, there would be a number of disappointed and angry people with reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government.
Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August, shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates.
One of the most important elements of the relationship between the House of Commons and the Executive was always the consideration of the provision of Supply by the House of Commons to the Government. I submit that anything that relates to that should be the subject of a full debate. However, the motion appears to provide--I am, of course, open to correction when the Minister replies--for the matter to be debated in substance but only under the condition that there is no debate after 10 o'clock. That will not do. I suspect that the main business today, which includes several amendments and Third Reading, means that there is only a very slim chance that the substance of later motions will be discussed before 10 o'clock.
The Vote on Account provides finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending Parliament's consideration of the main Supply Estimates.
In other words, the motion is a mechanism to allow government to function and to allow the continued spending of moneys before the House has a proper opportunity fully to consider the matters.
The amounts in the Vote on Account are normally a standard 45 per cent. of the amounts already voted for the corresponding services in the current year.
That is all very cosy. There is not much opportunity for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to the substance of what it is being asked to agree. The motion was slipped in on Friday, and again late last night. Thanks to the eternal vigilance of an hon. Member whom I am too modest to name, it is now--rightly--the subject of debate on the Floor of the House. However, the motion
states that there can be no debate after 10 o'clock, and that makes me suspect that the Government believe that the matter will not be properly considered.
for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords on 3 February 2000.
That is a little teasing. If the Government can set up such an inspectorate for £1,000 I shall be more impressed than I usually am at their efficiency. However, if the Minister assures me that that is what he is going to do, I shall be the first to vote for the proposal, to demonstrate the gratitude of the taxpayers of Bromley and Chislehurst. I will take a bit of persuading, however, because something tells me that that is not necessarily the whole story.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |