You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Debate
Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Personal Statement

1.13 pm

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): I rise to make an apology to the House.

The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has investigated a complaint against me and found that my entry in the Register of Members' Interests was inadequate and incomplete. I fully accept the way in which the complaint was investigated and the Committee's conclusions. I am most grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity to answer its questions in person. The omissions in my entry were due to an oversight on my part. I accept the Committee's findings. I make no excuses, and I offer my most sincere apologies to the House.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mrs. Gorman; the House is most appreciative.

20 May 1999 : Column 1227

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Allocation of Time)

1.14 pm

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,


20 May 1999 : Column 1228


    6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
    8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
    9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
    10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall speak to the motion as briefly as possible, as I sense that both sides of the House want to get on and discuss the main business before us--which is the resumed consideration of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and particularly the Government's proposals on disability benefits.

However, I must point out that after 13 hours of debate on Monday, we had completed consideration of less than half the amendments down for discussion. I made it clear the following day that the Government wished to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity and were keen to discuss our proposals--which will improve the condition of many disabled people--in prime time. By bringing them back today, when the House sits during the day, we shall ensure that the debate takes place in prime time. It is in the interests of the House and the country that people should understand exactly what the Government are proposing.

The Bill was in Committee for more than 65 hours and 25 sittings. That is the most sittings that a social security Bill has had for 10 years. There were 180 Opposition amendments. We spent 13 hours in debate on Monday. A lot of that debate was on matters on which the Opposition apparently supported us, such as extending maternity allowance to people who previously did not get it. We spent two and a quarter hours on the single work-focused gateway, which the Opposition apparently support. We spent some considerable time discussing our proposals for extending bereavement benefits before the Opposition withdrew their amendment.

At no point did the Opposition ask us for more time to discuss the Bill. We would have been happy to timetable the Report stage over two days rather than one. I stress again that I am more than happy to set out the Government's proposals, which will bring more help to severely disabled young people and to those who can work and want to do so, while bringing the benefit system up to date to reflect changing conditions. This wide-ranging welfare reform Bill implements the first stage of our pensions proposals, extends benefits to people who lose their spouse and have young children, and reforms disability benefits, as well as modernising the workings of the social security system. Those are all matters that the majority of the people in the country and in the House will support.

20 May 1999 : Column 1229

If we can dispose of the debate on the guillotine motion quickly, the House will have four and a half hours to debate these important matters. That is probably longer than we would have had if there had not been a guillotine. I am anxious that all hon. Members should have as much opportunity as possible to put their point of view. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later in the afternoon, Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to respond to the points that are put.

1.17 pm

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green): The Secretary of State said that the Bill had one of the longest Committee stages in recent years. That is not surprising. This huge Bill is essentially four Bills in one, so that is no justification for the guillotine.

I intend to be brief, because we do not want to take too much time from the key debates on the proposals. However, it is important to point out that it was unnecessary for the Government to push the guillotine forward. The Secretary of State said that we could have asked for extra time, but we did not need extra time. We would have completed the consideration of the amendments in good time in one sitting.

It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the situation is everybody else's fault. He carried out one-to-one briefings with the press lobby, winding up the process by saying that there would be no discussion and no concessions, that the Government would take the so-called rebels head-on, that there would be a real clash and that he was looking forward to it. We have a bargain basement Arnold Schwarzenegger who has pumped up the debate; but half way through consideration, he cut and ran, failing to face up to a serious debate.

The Secretary of State now blames everyone else. Apparently, we were going to bump the Kosovo debate the following day or we were filibustering the debate. [Hon. Members: "Yes!"] Well, a glance at the amendments reinforces the point that the Government tabled new clauses on three new subjects that had had no previous consideration. Two of them--on very big subjects--were tabled at the last moment. One--which changed the relationship of people with their pension funds in insolvency--was dramatic, and changed the nature of the Bill. The second, and perhaps most important, was the clause that we believe will destroy the livelihoods of self-employed people, particularly those in the information technology industry.

The last section of the clause, which is all about giving powers to the Treasury, states that


Those powers are vast, and mean that the Treasury can change anything it likes--at a whim, by order. No wonder we needed to debate those matters, and the Government tabled those new clauses ahead of everything else. The Leader of the House told us that these were minor considerations. They were not.

We heard earlier that it was a huge Henry VIII clause, but it is not so much Henry VIII as Louis XIV. The Prime Minister, Louis XIV himself, is the absolute monarch,

20 May 1999 : Column 1230

ruling all he surveys. This is a clause in his mind and his body. He had his Chancellor going around that night on one-to-ones with the Secretary of State, leaning on those of his colleagues who took a different view. The Chancellor, the cardinal, is responsible to Louis XIV, but the Secretary of State is the man in the iron mask.

So busy was the Secretary of State with the Chancellor that he managed to come into the Chamber for this vital Bill--his Bill--for four minutes and 23 seconds out of 14 hours. But who is counting? The Secretary of State made an appearance like a rabbit and went out like a rabbit when it was time for a one-to-one.

After all that, the right hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come here and blame everybody else--the man who briefed and built up has now been blown away. He may discover that, as in all one-to-ones, it is good to talk, but it is also good to listen. The Secretary of State has not been listening. He did not listen to his advisory forum, all of whom resigned in disgust; he is not listening to his colleagues who have a problem with the proposals; and he is not listening to the Opposition. If he were listening more than lecturing, he might have learned of the serious problems with his proposals.

After such incompetence--and with the Secretary of State now standing in the shadow of the only guillotine that really matters to him--I suggest that he looks to the famous lines of Sydney Carton:


The Government are a shambles and out of control. The guillotine today is a sign of the bully--all bluster and bravado, but when it comes to the crunch, no backbone.

Next Section

IndexHome Page