| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 853
extent it will contribute, as the Government suggested, to job creation schemes--raises doubts. The Government's imprecision gives us real concern.What about small companies? The Chancellor continued his Budget speech by saying :
"the current special exemptions"--
for small companies--
"will be extended. At present, those with national insurance bills of less than £16,000 a year are fully reimbursed after the first six weeks of each claim. I propose to increase that threshold to £20, 000, to bring more companies into the scheme, and to provide full reimbursement after only four weeks. Two thirds of all employers will therefore continue to get help."--[ Official Report, 30 November 1993 ; Vol. 233, c. 926.]
That undoubtedly created the impression that there would be no cost to small companies--indeed, that they might benefit. Unfortunately, it appears that that is not true.
The Chancellor mentioned improvements that he said he was making, but in preparing for today's debate our inquiries have elicited the information that there will be increased costs for small companies. At present, 80 per cent. of the costs of small companies are reimbursed for the first six weeks, and after that they receive 100 per cent. of their costs. The time limit is being lowered to four weeks, but until four weeks have passed small companies will get nothing. I repeat : they will get not one penny-- not one halfpenny--of compensation for the first four weeks. Only then will they receive 100 per cent. compensation. No doubt it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that, as all the surveys confirm, the vast majority of periods of sick leave are shorter than four weeks.
There is no reference to those facts in the Bill or in the notes on clauses. They emerged only during our inquiries in preparation for the debate. With only six hours available for all stages of the Bill, the facts might not have emerged at all during the debates. I assume that hon. Members would have concentrated their scrutiny of the legislation on what they thought were the difficult points, not on aspects that the Chancellor's words had led them to assume would not raise any problems.
We now know that there will be a cost--probably a substantial cost--for small businesses, and that it will be enshrined in regulations, which, as everyone in the House knows, cannot be amended. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House would not have drawn that implication from the Chancellor's words. That not only highlights the need for scrutiny of legislation but shows us all why the guillotine motion is before us.
Tory Back Benchers are fond of posing as the champions of small business. There have been references in the press today--clearly, the result of briefings by Conservative Members--about the reassurance given to disgruntled Tory Back Benchers. Now we know what they were disgruntled about ; they were being conned into voting for the Government, assuming that small businesses would be compensated. Now they know what is happening, and they can decide whether to vote for it.
Ms Walley : While my right hon. Friend has been speaking, has she noticed that some Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), seem not to have known the facts? Can the Government have kept the information away from their Back Benchers?
Mrs. Beckett : Judging by the expressions on the faces opposite, I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the information was kept from Conservative Members. That
Column 854
demonstrates, more perfectly than any words of mine could, why scrutiny of legislation is required in this place, why that is the purpose for which the House exists and the dangers to which hon. Members lay themselves open by behaving in such a cavalier fashion towards the House.The proposal to guillotine the Bills in such a manner is shoddy and disreputable. During the debates on the Queen's Speech we referred to the insolence of office that shines through everything that the Government do. The problem both in the House and in the country is that the Administration believe that they can do anything that they like, and they do not even want to be bothered to come to the House to defend it. It is clear that deceit, incompetence and cowardice are the hallmarks of the Government.
4.45 pm
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : I was not surprised to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) ; such speeches are de rigueur for a debate on a timetable motion. I welcome the proposal to allocate time on the two Bills. Indeed, I believe that that should be a standard procedure for all legislation and I am sorry that that aspect of the Jopling proposals seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes refer to the importance of freedom of speech in this place, but after a few years here I have come to the conclusion that much of that is a facade. In reality, debate has to be curtailed if minds are to be concentrated. One of the features of timetabled debates is a better quality of discussion ; more succinct arguments are addressed to particular amendments and to the particular concerns of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South did herself a disservice--not to mention causing offence to my hon. Friends and myself--by suggesting that Conservative Members were not aware of the absence of any help for the first four weeks. I am perfectly well aware of that and it is mentioned in much of the documentation that we have been sent by various organisations. It is indeed one of the matters that needs to be raised in the debate.
I remind myself that we are considering timetables for two Bills--the Social Security (Contributions) Bill as well as the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We have heard the sham anger from the Labour party, which before the general election planned to remove the upper earnings limit altogether. That would have meant a massive increase in national insurance contributions. The Labour party derides restraints on the time allowed for debate, yet if it had had its way many such issues would not even come before the House, because Labour would have handed the powers over to the European Community and the House would not have had the power to debate them.
The anger is a sham, coming from the party that has handed social policy- making to a commission, an outside body. That body is now--believe it or not--coming up with one or two sensible ideas, such as questioning the universality of child benefit. I wonder whether that idea will quickly be buried deep in the holes of Walworth road.
Mr. Enright : Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that, because one pursues a certain European policy, the House cannot debate such matters? If so, he fundamentally misunderstands how the Community works-- and, indeed, how the House works.
Column 855
Mr. Paice : Outside the Chamber the hon. Gentleman and I are hon. Friends and he knows from our lengthy discussions that there is a difference between debate and constructive debate. We can debate European measures until the cows come home, but we cannot necessarily amend them. If the Labour party had signed up to the social chapter, as it was pledged to do, legislation relating to many issues would be agreed by majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We could debate their decisions for as long as we liked, but, after such scrutiny, we would have no power to change them. That very point was stressed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) : Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Single European Act or the social chapter has been more damaging to the concept of subsidiarity?
Mr. Paice : The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the social chapter has not even come into existence--
Mr. Rooney : Yes, it has. The hon. Gentleman does not even know that.
Mr. Paice : It is highly questionable to argue that subsidiarity is damaging the country. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that the Labour party did all that it possibly could to obstruct the progress of the concept of subsidiarity by obstructing the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill--the Maastricht Bill--through the House. If the Labour party had had its way, subsidiarity would not be an option, because of its obstruction of the Maastricht Bill. The debate relates to the time allocated to two important, but small Bills. Those Bills will be considered after the House has had six days of debate on the Budget and, in the case of the social security contributions, five days of debate on the March Budget, when the 1 per cent, increase in national insurance contributions was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford) : Does my hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security came to the House the day after the Chancellor's Budget speech to announce the full details and implementation of the changes relating to social security? That was an opportunity for every hon. Member to take apart the proposals.
Mr. Paice : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A statement offers another opportunity to hon. Members to question a Minister on whatever issue.
Mrs. Dunwoody : Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that he is not aware of the difference between the questions put after a statement and the examination of a Bill?
Mr. Paice : Of course I am well aware of that difference, but a statement offers a further opportunity to hon. Members to understand exactly what is proposed. That information helps hon. Members to form their arguments on a particular matters. The ability to obtain information also counters the point made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who suggested that Conservative Members are unaware of the full implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is utter nonsense.
Column 856
The timetable motion allocates a full day for the consideration of each of the Bills. In addition, today's debate offers another three hours in which hon. Members can, as is the tradition, speak about the Bill's contents.Mr. Paice : That is the tradition behind timetable motions. We are talking about one Bill with three substantive clauses and another with two substantive clauses. Both relate largely to a matter of principle.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South was right to draw attention to the implications for small businesses of the proposed changes in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill relating to the first four weeks during which an employee is ill. No doubt we will have ample opportunity to table amendments to that proposal and I am sure that it will be discussed many times.
The Social Security (Contributions) Bill concerns a matter of principle. Hon. Members are either for or against the 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions. There is no need to provide a great deal of time for hon. Members to table amendments to that Bill.
Given the size of the two Bills, I believe that two full days of debate offer ample time to hon. Members to make short, succinct contributions that get to grips with the issues. That is the way in which all debates should be handled. I strongly support the motion. 4.53 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North) : I have been a Member of the House for just over three years and the one thing that I have learnt rapidly is that it behoves every hon. Member to read the representations that he or she receives, because they enlighten us about the implications of legislation.
I have received 57 letters from those running small businesses and 16 from those running large businesses in my constituency--yes, there are still 16 large businesses left there. Those people have explained the true implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill not only for their businesses but for their employees. Just today I received letters recording even more concern from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors--organisations not noted for their donations to the Labour party.
The Leader of the House said that the Department of Social Security and its internal organisation had to get documents out in February. I wonder what happened--obviously it was before my time--when national insurance contributions were increased in previous March Budgets. Those contributions stood at 6 per cent. in 1979 and had increased to 9 per cent. before the current proposals. How was it possible for a change to be made in a March Budget and then introduced by 1 April without the aid of a guillotine motion? Now, with four months to play with, the Government have introduced such a guillotine.
Mr. Newton : I specifically acknowledged in my speech that it is not impossible to do things at other times of the year. Announcements about national insurance contributions that were made in March were not implemented in April, because it was not practicable to do so, and were normally implemented in October. Over the years, the
Column 857
business community found it extremely inconvenient to make national insurance changes and all that went with them twice a year.Mr. Rooney : I accept that explanation from the Leader of the House, but no doubt others will challenge it. [Laughter.] I am glad that hon. Members find that funny.
The Government have made great play in recent times of the need to deregulate businesses. They have not, however, introduced much legislation to that effect. This week, however, we will debate the Statutory Sick Pay Bill for a maximum of six hours. But that Bill raises vital questions about exemption days and qualifying days. Following the decision last week, I wonder whether Sunday will become a qualifying day. What about the possible need for
self-certification?
All those matters are relevant to the implementation of the legislation, but they are not mentioned in it. No doubt at some time in the future loads and loads of regulations governing that legislation will be tabled--as they will concerning the Child Support Agency--but it will not be possible to amend them. By then the damage will have been done and the costs incurred and people will have suffered.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill represents a further betrayal of the promises made to employers when statutory sick pay was introduced and made the responsibility of management. Businesses were then told that 100 per cent. of the costs would be reimbursed and no one would lose out. I am reminded of the promises made in 1982 to local government when housing benefit management was transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities. Those promises came to nothing and council tax payers have had to bear the burden of tens of millions of pounds of lost revenue.
When the amount of sick pay rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, that reduction was not extended to local authorities. In other words, local authorities have suffered a 20 per cent. cut in the amount reimbursed to them and it has not been offset by a reduction in their national insurance contributions. Will local authorities be similarly excluded from the terms of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill? If so, we should be told of the consequences for council tax payers, who will be expected to carry an additional financial burden. That is another issue that is worthy of scrutiny and amendment.
Two years ago we discussed a similarly so-called short Bill of two or three clauses. We were told that the House need not waste any time on it. It effectively gave people bribes to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme--SERPS--into personal pension plans. In the past week we have seen stories of hundreds of thousands of people whose cases are being investigated because they are being ripped off by shady insurance salesmen, and their personal pensions for the future are in question. That is the danger of chasing something through the House in a short space of time when dealing with major implications for people's personal future, security and welfare. Much has been made of the fact that the Bills were mentioned in the Queen's speech and in the Budget statement. It is worth drawing attention to two points to do with the Budget speech, which was one of the shortest in many years even though it embraced the annual public expenditure statement. Only as the days have gone by have
Column 858
we started to see what was really in the Budget documents and not in the Chancellor's speech. Not least, we now find that not all pensioners will get the full amount. If they are on a reduced pension, they get reduced compensation for their VAT.It has still not been admitted anywhere that, as well as reducing the job seeker's allowance from 12 to six months, the Government have abolished the dependant's allowance, which was previously payable with unemployment benefit. That has not been mentioned in the House. It has not been spoken about by any Minister. I suspect that it has not been admitted to the Government Back Benches. One has to get down into the paperwork to find that information.
The implications of the Bill are horrendous, covering as they do some 26 million people in work in hundreds of thousands of companies. Their prosperity, viability and profitability are at risk. With that there is a risk of higher unemployment. The Bills are so serious as to deserve much more than six hours of debate. I think that this is a stupid guillotine. It is totally unnecessary and should therefore be opposed.
5.1 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) : I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate. I shall say at once that I support the measure. I believe that the guillotine is perfectly acceptable and that, important though they are, the issues that arise out of the debate are perfectly capable of being debated within the time span allowed and being given proper scrutiny. The Bill has implications for health--it makes a major contribution to health--and the competitiveness of industry. Those points have not been dwelt on at all by the Opposition, who seem to show little interest in them. On statutory sick pay, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was at her most high-minded when she opened the debate, talking about a measure that had major implications for British workers and businesses. One thing that I have learnt in this place is to be very suspicious of politicians when they are being excessively high-minded. In the case of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill it is instructive to look at the history of the matter and consider what may be the real reasons and motives that lie behind the sudden outburst of interest in the matter among Labour Members.
The proposal first came before the House in the Budget statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who clearly announced what the Government's intention was going to be in respect of statutory sick pay. As I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), although the Leader of the Opposition mentioned many other things in his response to the Budget debate, he did not see fit to mention at all the change in statutory sick pay, which had been announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The matter came before the House again the following day, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made his state question of statutory sick pay in his response to my right hon. Friend. It was inevitable that he would do so, because it was the subject that he was covering.
Column 859
I think that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss from me if I say that, in my experience of him, he is a stickler for detail. He is certainly assiduous in his attention to detail. There are times when he may regret going into as much detail as he does. In future, perhaps because of certain things that have happened here, we may have somewhat less detail from him. He took up the question of statutory sick pay with my right hon. Friend, but made no mention of a point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about small businesses.The hon. Gentleman did not pick up that point, although it was clear in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state, who explained what his proposals were going to be with the offsetting change in national insurance contributions and the protection that is being given to small businesses. Although the hon. Gentleman responded, he did not even query what the effect would be on small businesses let alone take up the point of the right hon. Member for Derby, South--so much for the hon. Gentleman's sudden concern for the fate of small business men.
If the hon. Gentleman would like the answer to the question that was posed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, it is quite wrong to say that there is no compensation for small business men. They enjoy the national insurance contribution reduction in the same way as all other business men do. In addition, they get the protection of having 100 per cent. of the statutory sick pay rebated to them after four weeks of sickness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says, "After four weeks," but if he knows about this, he will know that the present limit is six weeks and that it has been reduced to four weeks and is being made at 100 per cent. rather than at the rate of 80 per cent.
Mr. Jenkin : Is it not rather extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should make a great revelation about a particular aspect of the small business relief as though she had stumbled on it by accident hidden in some dark recess? If she were to look at the Library brief on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, she will find that it is there, under the heading "New Small Employers' Relief".
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : When was it published?
Mr. Jenkin : Obviously it was published in time for this debate. It would have been published in time for the debate on Second Reading and the Committee stage.
Is it not extraordinary that the official Opposition should need to make such bogus points about the measure?
Mr. Clappison : My hon. Friend is right. There have been no secret documents or secret inquiries made. If Opposition Members had an interest in the matter and took the time and trouble to study and listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said on 1 December, they would have seen that the proposals were clearly set out there. Nothing new has come out since. The proposals were there. The difference is that Opposition Members--Labour and Liberal Democrats-- were not interested at that stage in small businesses. They did not even have the interest to express any view about small businesses in their response to that debate.
Column 860
The story gets worse from there on, because after that debate we had days of debate on the Budget--a specially extended debate. Shadow spokesmen on health made no mention of the matter, although it has major implications for health. A shadow spokesman on employment made no mention of statutory sick pay. In fact, no other Members on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned it, apart from the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Peckham (Ms Harman), who made the most passing remark about the cost being passed on to employers, without taking any account of the offset in national insurance contributions. That was clearly an omission. I shall leave hon. Members to judge whether it was an intentional or negligent omission in each case. Opposition Front Bench Members were hardly being egged on by a tremendous outburst of interest and enthusiasm from their hon. Friends on the Back Benches, because so far as I can see--in my humble research into the matter--there were 34 speeches from Opposition Members in that long debate. Only two of those speeches mentioned statutory sick pay. They did not take up the point that was made today by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Yet all the proposals were known. They were all there.If Opposition Members had not been in the Chamber to hear the announcements in the Budget speech or my right hon. Friend's statement, they could have looked it up in Hansard . It was all there, yet there was no interest and no inquiries were made. I am driven to the conclusion that there is something strange going on with the Opposition. Why is there such a sudden outburst of enthusiasm for this Bill? What is the real reason for the sudden launching of guerrilla warfare? It is not for me to speculate on that.
Mr. Denham : I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. On a number of occasions, he has suggested that the arrangements that would apply to small businesses as a result of the Budget statement and the uprating statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security were perfectly clear. I have a copy of the Library briefing on the social security uprating statement and I cannot find anywhere in it anything which says that small employers will have to foot 100 per cent. of the bill for the first four weeks. Why is the hon. Gentleman so confident that that should have been crystal clear to the House?
Mr. Clappison : I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the second half of column 1037. If he applies his mind to it, he will see that it sets out the matter clearly.
Part of my reason for taking part in the debate was so that I could strongly endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about the timetabling of Bills and the scrutiny of legislation. In my short experience, I have taken part in the deliberations on a long Bill, with a number of clauses. My experience of the debates on the Education Bill led me to the conclusion that the quality of debate and of scrutiny are much improved by timetabling so that there can be constructive and intelligent debate without the Opposition trying to delay and procrastinate, using base parliamentary tactics to obstruct the passage of Bills.
I see the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) laugh. I think he knows all too well what I am getting at. My experience also led me to the conclusion that the Opposition's motives for what they were doing were often different from what they claimed.
Column 861
Mr. Enright : Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that Conservative Members, in what was a long-sitting Committee considering the Education Bill, refused to speak and give us the benefit, or otherwise, of their thoughts ? That was a great shame, because it meant that we had to examine the Bill from the Conservative angle as well as from our own.
Mr. Clappison : I enjoyed the company of the hon. Gentleman on that Committee. I think that he will remember that I made my own contributions to the debate, but I found it difficult to speak for as long and to as little effect as the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill deals with important issues such as improving the health of the work force, improving managements' administration of sick time and improving efficiency. I remind the Opposition that we have the second worst rate of absenteeism in the European Community. It is an important and straightforward Bill, which will create incentives to encourage management to manage more efficiently and to deal with sick time, while at the same time compensating business.
Those are important points, but they can be dealt with in short order. As to the point made by the Opposition about small businesses, any small business man would greet that with the hollowest of laughs, given the massive programme of regulation to which the Opposition are prepared to sign up in the name of socialism under the socialist programme for the European parliamentary elections.
5.12 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has got it all wrong if he thinks that the issue that we are debating, particularly when we are debating it under a guillotine, has anything to do with the merits or demerits of timetabling. I am happy to engage in discussions about timetabling, although that is difficult--much more difficult for an Opposition Member than a Government Member, but the hon. Gentleman may not always be sitting on the Government Benches. The House must deal with timetabling properly, but the Leader of the House does not make it any easier to deal objectively with timetabling when he treats us in this way.
We are faced with the most draconian guillotine that I have ever seen since I came to the House in 1983. As I said in the short debate on the money resolution last night, those on the Government Front Bench have to be careful about the precedents they set, because precedents can be used by anybody and everybody. If the House slips into a process of guillotining Bills before Second Reading, that will be another big step down the wrong slippery slope towards getting the procedures of the House and the rules and conventions disrupted. That may encourage others to emulate the Government's example, but it would not be sensible for the democratic process of the House. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who said that the Bill has only five clauses. I do not know where he was last year, but let me draw his attention to the fact that the Maastricht Bill had only five or six clauses. He said that there are one or two important issues of principle here, and so there are. However, £1,900 million-worth of expenditure is involved. The Bills were published only a few days ago, and are scant on the detail of some of the
Column 862
secondary enabling legislation. I agree that there are only five clauses, and that must be taken into account when we consider how many hours to allocate to them.This is the most draconian timetable that I have come across, and I was caught by that. I gave the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East an example. In good faith, I tabled a reasoned amendment against Second Reading--the House will know that, because it is on the Order Paper--of the Social Security Bill on Thursday. Were that amendment to be selected by the Chair--that is at the discretion of the Chair--the 15 minutes on the vote would be taken off the total time available for the Bill.
That puts constraints on hon. Members who have a bona fide interest in trying to argue a case for a constructive and positive Second Reading amendment. If the amendment were selected, I would have to decide whether a vote on it would be the best use of the time of the House. That is a difficult position in which to put hon. Members when they are debating such important issues.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Is not one of the Government's dilemmas the fact that the Opposition's Whips Office is often unable to deliver its agreements made through the usual channels? The Whips go around saying, "We're not voting on this, brother," but hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) force Divisions, taking up 20 minutes every time they do so.
I was in the engineering union, and I would tell the hon. Member for Bolsover, had he been sitting in his place now--we are not being televised live, so he is not here--that he does not pull his weight. He has a free ride. He never serves on Committees, while we are upstairs doing the work. If the Labour party cannot control its members, we shall continue to have problems.
Mrs. Dunwoody : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth followed the habit of the House and informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he intended to attack him in the Chamber?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Lady is right : that is the convention.
Mr. Kirkwood : I know the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and I suspect that he can look after himself. That intervention, helpful or otherwise, should not have been addressed to me. I have already offered to act as bookie's runner between the two Front Benches. For a small fee, I am anybody's. [ Hon. Members :-- "Oh!"] We all have a price. The sooner that the two Front-Bench teams get their act together, the happier we shall all be. If that happens before Christmas, nobody will be happier than me.
My experience of the past 10 years has shown me that guillotine debates get further and further away from the purpose on which they are supposed to be focused--looking at the details of the timetabling motion. I should be interested--I bet any money that he does not--if the Leader of the House could explain why he thinks it necessary to put in some of the verbiage in the guillotine motion.
Paragraph 1(5) says :
"No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken."
Column 863
I will give the Leader of the House a £5 note for every time that has happened in the past 10 years. Paragraph 7 deals with supplemental orders, and paragraph 8, on saving, means that the debate can end sooner than is set out in the guillotine motion. As for paragraph 9, it would be fascinating to know what figment of the parliamentary draftsman's fantastic imagination made him think that it was necessary to have that paragraph in the motion. Those paragraphs are extraneous, irrelevant and totally unnecessary. Why do we allow Ministers to table timetable motions that no one inside the House understands, let alone anyone outside the House? I spent the morning with the Clerks--and very helpful they were too--but how many other hon. Members spend time with the Clerks? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is an honourable exception.Mr. Newton : The hon. Member knows that I have huge respect for him. He will realise that these things are drafted by incredibly clever parliamentary draftsmen, and it would probably be better if I sought advice before answering the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not unknown for hon. Members to cause difficulties in the procedure on timetable business--for example, by moving other debateable motions that consume the time available. They then complain that a Bill has not been debated. We are trying to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is able to make the constructive comments that he always does.
Mr. Kirkwood : That is a monstrous attack on the hon. Member for Garscadden. I am sure that he would not do anything of the kind.
Mr. Newton : It is not the hon. Member for Garscadden that I have in mind. Wild horses would not force me to say who it is.
Mr. Kirkwood : Anyone who looks at the guillotine motion, and asks the Clerks what it is all about, will see that, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Leader of the House has taken sensible powers because he knows that absent friends could create difficulties.
I am not saying that guillotine motions do not have to contain certain necessary elements. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 make some sense in relation to the Government's position, but all the other rubbish is completely phantasmagorical nonsense and should not be there. May I return the compliment and say that the Leader of the House is a man for whom I have enormous respect, and I know that he is not given to this kind of thing.
If the Government are to resort to guillotine motions in future, there should be a sensible Standing Order that sets out the elements that a proper guillotine motion could and should contain. The motion would then come before the House as a numbered Standing Order. Everyone would then know exactly what the Government were trying to do by the motion.
I bet my bottom dollar that no more than three or four hon. Members in the Chamber could give a passable explanation of the detail of the contents of today's motion.
Mrs. Dunwoody : The hon. Member is missing the point. The Government's decision to put down a guillotine is not to make things clear to the House or the electorate.
Column 864
Their express purpose is to hide what they are trying to do. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the wording is to miss the whole import of the Government's reasoning.Mr. Kirkwood : I stand suitably chastened. I was trying to explain from the House's point of view ; I was not trying to make party political capital. The hon. Lady is right : some chicanery is going on to cover the Government's embarrassment. It does not make sense for the House to discuss motions that are unintelligible to everyone, including experts.
The Leader of the House's point about the 6 April deadline is vitiated, because everyone knows that the Government need to give proper notice. That deadline has always been the point at which administrative changes should take effect. Why did he not start last spring to contrive a parliamentary framework in which we could have a more sensible debate on this matter? He has got himself boxed in and has had to bring forward this legislation, which is of limited but important scope, in short order. He did not make a strong point when he claimed that it has been known for months that we needed to do this. He should have brought forward legislation about the national insurance contribution changes earlier.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill is a very important piece of legislation, particularly in the financial effects that it will have on small businesses. I talk to small business men more than I do to the larger organisations that represent industry, and they have told me that they feel that, over the past five years or so, the Government have let them down.
They were given commitments and undertakings when the old national insurance contributory benefit of sick pay, which used to be paid at the 100 per cent. rate, was changed. They were assured that there would be no difficulties with the changes, and that they could rely on the Government's word that they would not lose.
That amount has now been reduced, particularly in respect of small businesses, and those businesses now face financial difficulties. A business that employs eight to 10 men and has employees off sick for two or three weeks, especially if two or three of them are off at the same time, will have no cover, and will have difficulties with its cash flow.
The Bill is not only about the adverse financial effects but will strike at the root of the relationship that small businesses should have with the Government of the day. Small business men feel that they have been let down. Most of the representations that I have received refer more to that relationship than to the cash flow and other implications of statutory sick pay.
Small businesses have lost confidence that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by the Government, because of the changes and the way that they have been made.
| Next Section
| Home Page |