| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Donald Thompson: Would the hon. Gentleman mind if I put that in my election address?
Mr. Field: I should be happy for the hon. Gentleman to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West talked about the need for us to bring the debate up to date. That is similar to the debate raised by Eleanor Rathbone, in the House and elsewhere, on the distribution of income. During the rise of new Liberalism, prior to new Labourism, she said that the emphasis in the debate on the condition of the people was on which social class got what share of the national income. The debate was primarily about which men in which jobs attracted what sort of wages. She said that it was as important, if not more important, to examine the distribution of income between families with children and families without children. The depth charge that she threw into the debate still has to be dealt with.
My hon. Friend picked up on a similar aspect of the debate when he gently reprimanded us for talking about poverty in old-fashioned terms and saying that poverty is primarily determined by economic forces. We approach the subject by asking, "Are we old and therefore out of the labour market? Are we sick or unemployed and therefore out of the labour market?" My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that, if poverty is measured by eligibility for income support, more children are poor because they live in households with only one parent than are poor because both parents are unemployed or because one parent is unemployed.
In Birkenhead on Saturday there was a "Church action on poverty" hearing. We were invited to listen to people who are poor. The first presentations illustrated exactly what my hon. Friend said about poverty and family break-up, and one of my friends at the meeting--a Liberal councillor--wondered whether we were talking about something new. Everyone became defensive because we were hearing that family break-up was a cause of poverty.
As the debate unfolded in the afternoon, a number of people got to their feet and said that they felt that they were under attack and that we were somehow blaming them for being poor. The debate that my hon. Friend has started today must be approached with enormous sensitivity because we are saying something new which might be misinterpreted but also because people can be hurt by what we say. The responsibility for some of the trends mentioned by my hon. Friend rests with the House, in that the way in which we have spoken has made it easier for people to assume positions that they would not previously have assumed.
In speaking about means testing, I have mentioned people working the system rather than working to get off benefit. I have primarily tried to blame the House for that, not my constituents whose limited opportunities may lead them to work the system.
The same applies to family break-ups. If we pilot through the House divorce reforms that allow people to break the marriage contract after a period only half the length of an average hire purchase agreement, we are sending a powerful message--we think that a HP agreement is more important than a marriage contract. That is not to say that people will not work hard at their marriages; marriages may still fail at the end of the day. I am not pointing the finger, but if we defend HP agreements more strongly than we defend the marriage contract, we are sending a dynamic message to the country. If citizens then respond in a certain way to what we are saying, we should be the last people to reprehend them. We should examine the impact of our actions on the world outside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West said that we have to get away from blaming poverty on economic causes and must consider more personal reasons such as family break-up, but I hope that we do not fall into the syndrome of blaming victims from the past.We should conduct the debate sensitively along the lines that he followed and look to the future rather than trying to get out of our responsibility for the circumstances that we are now, unhappily, debating.
Despite the Trappist monks who populate the Treasury Bench, this has been an important debate. There have been two good firsts--I was able to hear the Minister speak for the first time and to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West begin his shadow, but soon--no doubt--ministerial, career. We also heard some important suggestions from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, which I hope the Ministers will note carefully and act on later today when they get back to their desks.
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
I beg to move,
The motion is intended simply to provide for the tidy organisation of our business tonight and for a substantial opportunity to debate the Standing Orders relating to Wales--more substantial, dare I say, than the time devoted to the debate on the Scottish Grand Committee, but it may be unwise to make that point.
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided that a debate on the Standing Orders to change the Welsh Grand Committee's workings should continue until 10 o'clock this evening. Had the attitude of certain other Conservative Members been different, such a long debate might not have been necessary and the Leader of the House's comparison with the changes that we made to the Scottish Grand Committee would have been more valid. May I give hon. Members a little background to what has happened on this occasion? It might help the Leader of the House understand why we are in the position where we may debate the Standing Orders for four hours.
The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Wales will be aware that Labour Members have long been pressing for changes to the Standing Orders on the Welsh Grand Committee. They have made it clear that the required changes should be meaningful and should properly improve the way in which the Welsh Grand Committee works. They have argued that any such changes should be implemented after discussion and by agreement among all the people involved in the Committee.
I am sure that such an approach would commend itself to the Leader of the House because, whenever he has proposed changes, he has proceeded by way of consultation. Some 18 months ago, after considerable discussion with the Opposition parties, with my predecessor and me and with hon. Members from the minority parties, he recommended changes to proceedings in the House of Commons based on the Jopling Committee's recommendations. Although we want to go further in some matters, the changes have been made on the basis of consensus, discussion and consultation.
It is important for the Leader of the House to recognise that his approach of introducing change after consultation has not been the Secretary of State's approach on this occasion. Therefore, responsibility for the problems that
the House faces in having a longer debate on these Standing Orders than on those on the Scottish Grand Committee lies clearly at the door of the Secretary of State. It is not the Leader of the House's fault that we are in this position.
The problem of negotiating changes to the Welsh Grand Committee need not have resulted in a stalemate between the Secretary of State and Welsh Members. Labour and other members of the Committee have attempted to discuss in good faith changes that would be most appropriate. I do not know whether the Secretary of State understands how strong feeling is among Labour Members. Many overtures have been made to him and to his predecessor. Had any of those offers been taken up, there could have been a more constructive discussion on how the Welsh Grand Committee discussed affairs relevant to Wales.
The approaches that have been made to Ministers go back almost a year--certainly to April 1995. The Secretary of State was not in his position then, but discussions were proposed to his predecessor. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) suggested to a Government Whip that changes would be appropriate and that more constructive use could be made of the time available to the Welsh Grand Committee.It took some time for the Welsh Office Minister to reply to my hon. Friend. In July, the Minister said that it was up to the Committee to determine when and where it met and that such things were arranged through the usual channels.
My hon. Friends tried to use the usual channels to arrive at some consensus. Their approaches to Ministers were rejected on all occasions--so much so that, by November last year, when the Secretary of State had been in office for four or five months, my Welsh colleagues decided that it would be appropriate to make their own proposals on the workings of the Welsh Grand Committee.
Shortly afterwards, the Secretary of State came up with some ideas and made a statement on the Welsh Grand Committee, suggesting improvements and changes in its business. Even after that statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central again tried to enter into negotiations to ensure that there was agreement on what changes were necessary to the Standing Orders and that best use was made of the time.
My hon. Friends have suggested that progress could have been made had those proposed changes been discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee by Welsh Members of all parties who are most affected by them.I would have thought that that was a reasonable proposition. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State has been adamant that that procedure is not appropriate.
6.9 pm
That, at this day's sitting--
(1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Welsh Business not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments to the said Motion which she may have selected and which may then be moved; and
(2) Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply with the insertion in line 41, after the words 'At Ten o'clock', of the words 'or immediately after the previous business has been disposed of, whichever is the later'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |