| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
National Science Strategy
Dr. Ian Gibson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a national science strategy; to create a National Science Strategy Council to monitor levels of funding, to consult scientific organisations and to advise the Secretary of State; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 165].
Orders of the Day
Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
Lords amendments further considered.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the House's financial privileges are involved in all four Lords amendments for consideration today, which is to say Lords amendments Nos. 20B, 42D, 43E and 43F. If the House were to agree to any of those Lords amendments, I would ensure that the appropriate entry was made in the Journal.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Minister of State mentioned the Parliament Act 1911 and said:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have listened with interest to the argument put to me. Madam Speaker is charged under
Mr. Rooker:
I will keep my remarks brief because there is a guillotine on all four amendments. Lords amendment No. 20B refers to our debate last week on war widows.
In a week like this week, we obviously recognise that we have to look after the widows of those who died as a result of service, but I repeat what I said last week. The matter is under inquiry and review by the Ministry of Defence and it is not appropriate to place the amendment in the Bill. I do not defend the argument on cost grounds, although I gave the House a series of costs last week that could escalate as a knock-on effect of the amendment.
Last week, in answer to a specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 389 of Hansard, I said that the amendment would cost the MOD less than £15 million annually. I say to my hon. Friend, whom I see in his place, that the cost of the amendment would actually be a good deal less than that. One has to be careful about the kind of cohort with which one is dealing. I give a rough figure, but we cannot be held to it. If future and current widows affected by the amendment were taken into account, the cost would be about £3 million. That would not include those who have already remarried. I must, however, be very precise about the general figures at issue.
I quoted other knock-on figures last week for the public sector which I will not repeat tonight because they are on the record and they stand. However, I wanted to put that extra figure from the MOD on the record so that we could see the amount in relation to the group of widows in question. That is important.
Hon. Members are fully entitled to make representations to the MOD. I confirm to the House that I have kept the commitment that I gave to the House last week. I have made the most urgent and vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of the debate. I did more than send him a copy of Hansard. I wrote to him and even added my own postscript to the letter. I registered the mood from both sides of the House. With respect, I think that the other place also did that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman there said that the figures had been placed on the record and the Government could be held accountable to them. Indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench did not vote on the matter and in the subsequent Division the majority was
somewhat less than before. I hope that the House does not wish to divide on the amendment tonight and that it will accept my motion.
The matter is being given serious consideration. The MOD will publish the review by next summer and it will be available for full public consultation. I accept that I cannot answer on the reasons for the delay, but since my speech last week it has been reaffirmed in the other place by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, on the say-so of my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, that the report will be published by next summer. There will then be full public consultation. We are not dismissing the issue without fair consideration. We do not dismiss the amendment on cost grounds alone. Who would dismiss it on a perfunctory £3 million, which is all that is involved for this narrow cohort? There are, however, other considerations to take into account. It is right that we should do that and not accept the amendment.
Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity within a relatively short period following a consultation to come to a conclusion, so I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put before it tonight.
Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor):
I want to speak, albeit briefly, in support of the Lords amendment, which is a great modification on the original. It tightens still further the ring fence around the group of war widows represented so well by the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Let us be clear that we are talking about post-1973 widows of service men who die or are killed in the line of duty while still serving. Moreover, we are talking only about those who might decide to remarry. The new Lords amendment further defines the group by excluding all widows in receipt of the basic state pension--those over 60 years of age.
"That legislation can be used to push a Bill through the House on a fast-track basis only if the Bill takes the same form as it took when it was introduced . . . The reality, as the Clerks will confirm, is that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through the amended Bill."--[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 332.]
I have discussed that with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that it is a complicated matter. However, it appears that the Bill could pass amended if the Lords amendments were agreed. Could you clarify that?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |