Business of the House (Hansard, 20 July 1994)

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, in the circumstances, this Motion is a farce. The object of the rule about taking not more than two stages of a Bill on the same day is obviously to facilitate debate and to prevent debate being crowded. But we know perfectly well that thanks to the decision of the Procedure Committee, the usual channels, or both—and I do not know which it was—we are not permitted to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is my understanding that that ban still stands and, if so, it makes a farce of the Motion.

§ Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I acknowledge that there has been discussion between Front Benches with regard to economic debates. I believe that the Government have agreed that extra time should be made available for economic debates and that will substitute for our usual wrangle in relation to the Consolidated Fund.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that is so. The Opposition spokesman has made a very helpful comment, but it is for the Government to answer.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to say that we cannot debate the Consolidated Fund. I understand that debate is permissible but we cannot vary any decision made by the other place. If I am wrong about that, then I stand to be corrected. However, my understanding is that year after year noble Lords have reasserted the right to make comments.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to save time. A ruling was made, which I unsuccessfully sought to contest, that we are not 256 permitted to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill. As far as I know, that is still the Government's ruling, although I believe it to be wholly wrong.

§ Lord Monkswell
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. I must admit that, for once in my life, I find myself in total agreement with him.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Notwithstanding anything that has been said by the Government or any ruling that has been made, on future occasions I wish to reserve my right to raise again the whole question of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has returned to a theme which I understand that he has aired on one or two occasions. Also, I gather that the noble Lord has written to my noble friend the Leader of the House and has recently received a reply which intimated to him that the Government intend to allow economic debate and the timing of it.
Perhaps I may remind the House that it is not the Government's decision to move formally the Consolidated Fund Bill. That is the decision of the House as set out in the Companion to Standing Orders. It is important to realise also that during the course of 1994 we had three debates on economic matters: on 30th March there was an Unstarred Question on export promotion; on 29th April, there was the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill; and on 22nd June we had a debate on job creation in a technological age.
I believe that opportunities have been afforded to the House to have those debates but I note what my noble friend said.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The point is that it has not been agreed that the Consolidated Fund Bill should be debated. A general offer was made of an economic debate some time after the Recess. The point which I desire to stress is that the Consolidated Fund Bill is extremely important. It is perhaps the most important Bill in the whole of our annual calendar. It is a wrong and foolish decision that it cannot be debated.

§ Viscount Ullswater
My Lords, I must reaffirm that that is a decision which the House has taken.