BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 18 July 1966)

§ Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement.
The Economic Statement foreshadowed by the Prime Minister on Thursday last will be made on Wednesday. It would, therefore, be to the convenience of the House if the Third Reading of the Finance Bill were to be deferred.
Consequently, the business for this week has been rearranged as follows:
TUESDAY, 19TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Industrial Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, AND THURSDAY, 21sT JULY—Selective Employment Payments Bill.
Committee stage.
MONDAY, 25TH JULY—Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill.
Second Reading of the Malawi Republic Bill [Lords].
40 Motion on the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Order.
TUESDAY, 26TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
Second Reading of the Lesotho Independence Bill [Lords].

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Leader of the House aware, first, that the fact that he has to come before the House at the beginning of the week and reorganise the whole of the business for the week shows quite clearly that when he made his statement last Thursday he did not have a clue that the Prime Minister was to make the economic statement on Wednesday? Does not this confirm absolutely the Government's total unpreparedness for the economic storm which has hit them?
Secondly, why is the Iron and Steel Bill being put before the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, when, in these circumstances, its Second Reading should be dropped altogether?
Thirdly, will the Leader of the House recognise that the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, with its comparatively limited scope, will be no substitute for a full economic debate?

§ Mr. Bowden
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly made it known to the country and the House on leaving for Moscow that he would make his statement as soon as possible on his return.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is that on Monday of next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an important meeting at The Hague with international Finance Ministers and that it would, therefore, not be possible on that day to take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. We propose, therefore, to continue, as announced on Thursday, with the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. We shall take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Tuesday of next week.
Perhaps we can discuss through the usual channels whether another debate should take place.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Thursday the Prime Minister said that a statement was to be made, that he then said that it would be made in good time before the House rose 41 for the Recess, which the Leader of the House has said would be about 9th August, that on Friday it was moved forward to the middle of next week, that it has now been moved to Wednesday of this week, and that it should have been made last Thursday?

§ Mr. Bowden
I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is sorry or pleased that the statement is to be made on Wednesday of this week. What my right hon. Friend is doing is making it as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Lubbock
Bearing in mind that deflationary action has been taken by the Government in raising Bank Rate to 7 per cent., and that this deflationary action will be further intensified on Wednesday, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Selective Employment Tax, which takes effect in the autumn, will lead to serious unemployment when put on top of these measures? Therefore, instead of arranging for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, will he have the Bill recommitted to the House so that this tax can be deleted?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the connection between the Prime Minister's statement and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill? He said that it would be for the convenience of the House. Why should it be convenient for the House?

§ Mr. Bowden
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot recall the business statement of last Thursday. Originally, the Third Reading of the Finance Bill was to have been tomorrow. Of course, it would have been quite inappropriate to have discussed the Third Reading of the Finance Bill the day before the financial statement.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
If the Prime Minister had not gone to Moscow, would he not have been indignantly attacked by the Leader of the Opposition for neglecting his duty?

§ Mr. Fletcher-Cooke
As the only thing to be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is what is in the Finance Bill, what relevance has that to what the Prime Minister will say on Wednesday?

§ Mr. Bowden
I agree that, technically, all that can be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is the content of the Bill, but we have very often conducted a much wider debate.

§ Mr. Grimond
May we press the right hon. Gentleman a little on this? Is he suggesting that the new measures which the Prime Minister is to announce on Wednesday will be debatable during the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir. That is not what is suggested. What I have said is that if the Opposition feel that a further day is required we can discuss that through the usual channels, but I have said, in addition, that some of the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be putting before the House on Wednesday might be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government cannot face a debate tomorrow on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, in view of its total irrelevance to the present situation?

§ Mr. Bowden
When one alters the business of the House to suit what, in the view of the Government, is the general convenience of the House so as to discuss the Third Reading of the Finance Bill after a statement, I regard it as rather unkind of the right hon. Gentleman, to put it no higher, that he should feel that he wants tomorrow to discuss the Third Reading of the Finance Bill and then to have the statement the day after.

§ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd
On a point of order. Do I understand—I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—that on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill we shall be allowed to range wide over the whole economic situation?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Chair will never rule in advance of a debate.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Will my right hon. Friend be a little more generous in his chiding of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition? Does he not realise that the right hon. Gentleman is facing intense competition on the Opposition Front Bench?

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
On a point of order. In view of your Ruling in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), may I ask you for an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have not yet approached you about widening the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not the kind of question which an hon. Member should put to the Chair. The simple answer is, "No".

§ Mr. Sandys
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Iron and Steel Bill, which involves heavy Government expenditure on compensation, is a highly inflationary Measure? Will he consider postponing the Second Reading debate on that Bill so that the Cabinet may have a further opportunity to consider whether it is right, in present circumstances, to proceed with the Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
I recognise that the Iron and Steel proposals were one of the issues on which the Government won a handsome mandate some weeks ago.

§ Mr. Rankin
Is not the question of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) an argument for reducing the compensation to the iron and steel industry?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. All that we need at the moment are business questions.

§ Mr. Carlisle
If the Leader of the House says that the purpose of bringing the Iron and Steel Bill forward to next Monday is because a mandate was given for the Bill at the last election, could he explain upon what basis the compensation terms of the Bill have been changed since the election.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I understand that there is going to be an opportunity to debate the Iron and Steel Bill.

§ Mr. Ridley
In view of the catastrophic effect upon our finances of the Iron and Steel Bill, to come up for Second Reading next Monday, is it not disgraceful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to be here, to listen to the debate?

§ Mr. John Hall
Does the announced change of business mean that the proposals we are to hear from the Prime Minister will make the present Finance Bill completely inappropriate? Does the fact that we are having a Third Reading of the Finance Bill next week mean that it really is to be withdrawn and that we are to be given a different Bill?

§ Mr. Bowden
No, Sir.