§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)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 Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, I take it that my noble friend the Minister is still adhering to the ban on debating the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. If that is right, I draw his attention to a sentence in the Bill itself in which it states:
be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".I can understand that if we have a debate and pass the Bill our consent can be assumed. However, perhaps my noble friend will say how, if we are not allowed to make a debating speech on the Bill, we tender the advice which the Bill itself says we tender?
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, my noble friend answered his question by agreeing with me that the Lords spiritual and temporal will pass the Bill this afternoon. My noble friend returns to the subject regularly. Therefore he will not be surprised if I refer him to the Companion to the Standing Orders, which sets out the convention on the proceedings for the Consolidated Fund Bill. I remind him that that convention was endorsed by the Procedure Committee as recently as March 1994.
I appreciate that my noble friend is keen to discuss economic and industrial matters. I remind him that he will have such an opportunity next Wednesday on a Motion put down by my noble friend Lord Prior. In addition, there will be a full Second Reading of the Finance Bill before 5th April. My noble friend will get two bites at this particular cherry before the Easter break.
§ Lord EatwellMy Lords, another small tradition connected with these Consolidated Fund Bills is that I usually rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his wish for greater time to debate economic matters. In this instance, as the party opposite has put down a debate for next Wednesday, when the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Government's economic policy will be fully exposed, I shall not make my traditional plea for more time.
§ Lord Campbell of AllowayMy Lords, surely the question is not what is in the Bill but what the House wants to do. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter wants to debate the Bill. Most of your Lordships do not want to debate the Bill. Is that not the end of the matter?
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, if my noble friend is not going to answer that particularly silly intervention, will he answer the question that I asked; namely, how, if the Bill itself says that the consent and advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal has been given, that advice is to be given if we are not allowed to debate the Bill?
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, I usually rise to support what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said on this matter. As one who profoundly disagrees with the uses to which the funds in the Consolidated Fund have been put, I view with some incredulity the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to conduct a canvass of opinion in this House as to whether your Lordships agree with him on this matter. I am quite sure 1322 that, with the aid of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for example, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, we could probably rustle up a majority in favour of a complete discussion of the Bill.
Will the Government think again about this matter in view of the pressure that is exercised from time to time and year by year and the eloquent phrases of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter?
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, I have been referred to by name for some reason which I do not understand. Is it not the case that if the House passes the Motion now before it, it will he giving advice, whether after speeches by noble Lords or in the absence of speeches by noble Lords?
§ Lord Mackay of ArdbrecknishMy Lords, perhaps I may respond to this brief, interesting and totally unpredictable debate. My noble friend should bear in mind that the other place does not debate this Bill either, and that the matter has been referred, at his instance, to the Procedure Committee. As I mentioned in my original response to him, the Procedure Committee decided to make no change. If he wishes to carry on this discussion, the Procedure Committee is the right place to do that.
§ Lord CockfieldMy Lords, I believe that inadvertently my noble friend the Minister may not have given the House a full account of what happens in another place. The procedure there was changed many years ago. The Consolidated Fund Bill is now taken without debate; but it is immediately followed by a Motion for the adjournment of the House, on which extensive debate takes place.
§ Lord Simon of GlaisdaleMy Lords, although as regards this particular Consolidated Fund Bill there is the opportunity for an economic debate next Wednesday and the debate on the Finance Bill shortly, that is not always so. For example, the next Consolidated Fund Bill will come to us at some time in the late summer. That is in the middle of a very long period when there is no debate on economic and financial matters. Perhaps I may venture to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that this matter should really be seriously considered again.
§ On Question, Bill read a second time.
§ Committee negatived; then, Standing Order 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 22nd March), Bill read a third time, and passed.