| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the Question whether consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
Mr. Davies: I do not believe that consideration should now be adjourned, because we are about to launch into a discussion of important matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we cannot discuss future matters because they will fall to be considered on a future occasion.
Mr. Davies: Before we allow the Government to adjourn proceedings tonight, we must probe the reasons why they have suddenly changed their mind. It is not the first time that they have changed their mind. As I have said, there are several inconsistencies between the proposals that they have brought before us now and the original provisions of the Bill. What is new and has happened in the past half an hour or so is that they have changed their mind about seeking parliamentary approval for the totality of these proposals.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is not why, it is whether.
Mr. Davies: I wonder whether it is possible to consider the question whether without considering the question why.
Mr. Davies: I shall give way to my most senior colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body).
Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend has been most restrained, considering the circumstances. Is there not one
argument that should be considered in favour of adjournment? We have no one up there in the Gallery to report the shambles.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he should realise that there can be reference to no one other than those who are present in the Chamber.
Sir Richard Body: Is there not a chance that our proceedings might be reported, which would enable the public to appreciate what has been going on here, how arrogant and appalling the Government are and what a mess the Bill is?
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that it is not right to refer to anyone in the Chamber other than Members of Parliament, but I think it is proper to refer to the media in general, which--rightly--focus on this place. It is not an accident that the moment that the Government have chosen to try to run away from the debate is the moment at which, probably, there is the least scrutiny from the media in general, whether by individuals who may be present above the Chamber or by others. Obviously, one of the Government's motives is the fact that they do not want the media to return in the morning and find that the Government are retiring in tatters.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): Is there not a very good reason for the House not to adjourn at 4.20 am? The next clutch of new clauses, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House's attention, relate to the uprating of pensions overseas. This may be a diabolical hour for us to debate the matter in the Chamber, but for those who will be affected in Canada and Australia it is prime listening time. They are all glued to their radio sets, listening to what is going on here.
This evening's debates have been won consistently by the Opposition and the Labour rebels. The fact that the Government continue to win the votes is immaterial: the debates have been won by those who have opposed the Government's proposals.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed far enough from the Question.
Mr. Davies:
My hon. Friend is right. Those who are listening in from Canada, Australia or anywhere else will have no illusions about who is responsible for destroying their reasonable hopes--
Mr. Burns:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies:
I will when I have finished my sentence, if that is permitted. Those people will have no illusions about who is responsible for destroying their reasonable hopes of receiving the benefit to which they are entitled through their own national insurance contributions in this country. Listeners in Canada, Australia or elsewhere will also appreciate that the Government are not prepared
Mr. Davies:
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) first.
Mr. Burns:
Is not a compelling reason for us not to adjourn now the fact that, at 10 pm last night, the Government were able to choose whether to continue consideration of the Bill or to call it a day and come back another day? They made a definite decision to proceed--
Miss McIntosh:
Until any hour.
Mr. Burns:
Until any hour, as my hon. Friend says.
What has happened between then and now? Have the Government suddenly realised that they face a defeat later this morning? Are they drawing stumps to avoid the humiliation that would be inflicted on them by a number of their hon. Friends?
Mr. Davies:
It is incontrovertible that the Government changed their mind. They have changed their mind about substance many times, and tonight they changed their mind about procedure. They found that the going was ceasing to be tolerable. They thought that they could get all the measures through as recently as 10 pm, but now they know that they cannot get them through in good order. They have lost the argument on insolvency; they have lost the argument on bereavement, on which they found that the mass of their own Back Benchers were against them. Now they simply cannot contend with us on stakeholder pensions, or, of course, on incapacity benefit.
All Labour Members are doing is postponing the evil day. They are entirely wrong if they think that we shall simply go to our beds and forget about it, and talk about something else tomorrow or next week. Nevertheless, tonight has been very revealing. Here we have a Government who, for all their arrogance, made a clear commitment at 10 pm to getting measures through the House and then found some six hours later that they could no longer live up to it.
Mr. Davies:
I see that a phalanx wish to intervene. To be fair, I can think of no other way than to go from left to right.
Mr. Garnier:
I take it as a compliment that my hon. Friend has started from the left.
Does my hon. Friend know when the Government propose to resume the proceedings? When the Government Whip moved the motion, did he indicate when the Government would condescend to revisit the matter? If we are to adjourn now, it is essential that we should know when we can consult our constituents and when my hon. Friend can consult the experts, academics and others, so that we can revisit the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will not go down that line. This Question must be dealt with first. Presumably, when it is dealt with, or as it is reached, an indication will be given of further consideration.
Mr. Davies:
It may be in order to anticipate. I can certainly anticipate with complete confidence that the last thing that the Government want to talk about tonight is resuming the debate, which has been disastrous for them. They will go away burying their head in their hands and hoping against hope that they never have to confront the House on those measures again, or have the shambles of their behaviour exposed again.
Mrs. Browning:
My hon. Friend will know that we have spent some 13 hours discussing and debating six sets of new clauses and amendments. I should now like to persuade him that it would be appropriate to adjourn.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |