HL Deb 22 March 1994 vol 553 cc587-9
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Henley.)

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to inform the House as to the Government's intentions with regard to the implementation of the undertaking given at the time the House was persuaded not to allow debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time the House was told that there would be a full financial and economic debate to compensate. Can my noble friend say when the debate will take place?

Lord Henley

My Lords, that is a matter, I believe, for the usual channels. I am sure that my noble friend will find adequate means of taking up the matter with my noble friend.

Lord Eatwell

My Lords, at the time of the last Consolidated Fund Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, protested about the fact that there was inadequate time to discuss economic matters in the House. He is quite right: he was told that such time would be made available. That has not happened, although I can quite understand the Government's reluctance to discuss economic affairs and to have their rather disastrous record subjected to careful examination. However, it is true that the Government assign very little time in this House to discussion of economic affairs. When such matters are scheduled for debate, as was the recent report to the European Commission by the Government about the status and performance of the British economy, the debates tend to be scheduled late on Thursday afternoons. Will the Minister give an assurance that more time will be made available by the Government for the discussion of economic affairs?

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

My Lords, as the noble Lord would discover if he were to speak to the Opposition Chief Whip, there will be a Finance Bill before the House very shortly. That will afford a proper opportunity to discuss these matters. In view of the Procedure Committee's recommendations to the House, I wonder if this is the right time to proceed.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, does my noble friend recall the undertaking, given at the time the House was persuaded to agree to ban debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, that there would be an alternative debate on finance and economic matters Is my noble friend aware that the mere statement that the usual channels will discuss this matter is not an implementation of that undertaking?

Lord Wakeham

My Lords, if I recall the discussions that we had at that time, I do not believe that the House needed much persuading not to pursue the question of debates on the Consolidated Fund. There was an agreement to arrange alternative economic discussions and, as I understand it, we arrange those debates in this House through the usual channels. I give an absolute undertaking to do that.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Would it not be possible to organise a debate on the detailed report that the Government submitted to the European Commission under Article 104(c) of the Treaty of Maastricht so that we may then know the obscure moving of the Government's mind on these matters and what they feel able to report in that regard to the Commission? Would that not be an admirable occasion on which to discuss such matters, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I should like to be helpful. I do not for a moment disagree with the intentions expressed when the matter was raised earlier. I have cast my mind back to the period in late November and December of last year when we had the Queen's Speech debates, immediately followed by a Labour debate. Certainly, there was no disinclination on the Government's part at that time to produce an extra day. Recognising the fact that we had had a fair ration of economic debate in late November and December, our side of the House did not pursue the matter. In the light of what has been said, surely the noble Lord the Leader of the House is being very fair in saying that the matter should be returned to the usual channels to see whether an opportunity can be found for such a debate. We certainly agree with that proposal.

On Question, Bill read a second time.

Committee negatived; then Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 21st March), Bill read a third time, and passed.