I shall not detain the House long. I wish to draw its attention to the form of the Money Resolution and to ask a number of questions about it. This is a curious Money Resolution and perhaps my experience in the House makes me unable to understand its total cost and content.

It says

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of"

and then lists in paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) certain definitions. However, at no stage does it indicate any sum of money.

By coincidence, I deduce that paragraph (a) refers to Clause 3 of the Education Bill which has just had its Second Reading. Why do we have to authorise an item of expenditure without any limit or ceiling to it in connection with a Bill which has just received its Second Reading? If we relate the paragraphs to the clauses, we discover that Clause 3 refers to the approval and implementation of the proposals. What is the cost of the implementation of the proposals likely to be? I do not want an answer which relates only to the cash cost today.

In the unemployment debate which took place a short time ago—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to accept that your hearing, Mr. Speaker, may be substantially better than mine, but I am finding it extremely difficult to hear my hon. Friend's important remarks.

Order. The House should listen with respect to any hon. Member.

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend.

I should like to point out that 172 grammar schools are likely to be affected by the proposals contained in the Resolution. There must be a cost analysis. In the unemployment debate there was a continual call for the cost benefit analysis on a total basis. When we discussed unemployment we wanted to know about redundancy, social security and loss of production. When we discuss education we want to know not only the Government's expenditure but the local authority expenditure. This is a reasonable question to ask at a time when we are being asked to pass a Money Resolution.

Paragraph (b) refers to Clause 7. Paragraph (c) refers to Clause 8 which deals with milk. In the Explanatory Note on the

"Financial effects of the Bili"

it states that it will cost £6 million to £9 million. Those figures are not contained in the motion which we are being asked to approve.

This is a curious procedure whereby we are asked to approve expenditure in respect of legislation which has not yet been approved and for which the amount involved is uncertain. The only matter which is certain is that in 1976–77 £25 million is to be spent on the reorganisation of schools for comprehensive purposes.

What provisions are there in the Government's capital expenditure estimates to provide for this type of cost? Have the sums been done? Have the calculations been made? Our experience is that the Government machine succeeds in bungling the figures time after time. We have the Treasury's book-keeping record. The Home Office is unable to get the immigration figures right. I want to be sure that the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science has got his sums right. We want to know the cost. That is the purpose of the Resolution.

I should like, Mr. Speaker, to add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members on your election to the Chair.