Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Allocation of Time)
House of Commons, 20 May 1999.
Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)
I beg to move,
Order of consideration
Timetable
Questions to be put
Miscellaneous
Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative, 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 the Treasury may with the concurrence of the Secretary of State by order make such modifications of the preceding provisions of this section as the Treasury think appropriate for that purpose. 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, 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: It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known. 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.
Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)
I strongly support this guillotine motion, and I would like to explain why—particularly to my hon. Friends, all of whose views I respect on this matter of great importance. I look at this matter in the context of my experience of previous Labour Governments with previous contentious issues, such as the reform of the House of Lords in the 1966 Parliament. At that time, it was not opposition from Conservatives or Liberals, but disagreement within our own party that led to the reform of the House of Lords being frustrated and prevented. It has had to be resuscitated 30 years later by a Government so concerned about it that they have had to resort to the desperate measure of appointing me as a member of a royal commission to look at it. Labour Members—Opposition Members could not have done it—inserted in the original Scottish and Welsh devolution legislation the 40 per cent. referendum provision that led to the fall of the Labour Government, 18 years of Conservative government and, incidentally, a 20-year delay in the introduction of devolution. We are to debate a major issue after we approve the guillotine. I respect fully the views of all my hon. Friends, but they should be aware that the Government will win today, regardless of Labour Members' votes against or abstentions. They will win because of the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, including old lags such as myself. What will be the consequence if there is a substantial failure among Labour Members to support the Government? Whatever our views, we will all go from here tonight and campaign for our party in the European elections. If there is a substantial reduction in the Government's majority because of the views of some of my hon. Friends—and they are friends in both senses—who will be pleased? The Government will not be pleased. My hon. Friends who have reservations or disagreements with the Government will not be pleased, because they will have lost. Who will be pleased? The BBC, which has set itself up as a kind of alternative Opposition party, will be pleased. It is waiting breathlessly for its news bulletins to be able to start with the headline, "Labour suffered a serious rebellion and setback in the House of Commons this afternoon." Who else would benefit? Let us consider the Liberal Democrats who, we must never forget, voted with Margaret Thatcher to bring down the Labour Government who would have introduced devolution. They are responsible for Thatcherism, together with the Conservatives. There are quite a few pretty nice guys among Liberal Members of Parliament, but those of us who have nests of Liberal Democrats in our constituencies know that they are not the same thing at all. They are opportunists, fluttering from issue to issue and alighting like flies on garbage heaps. The Liberal Democrats in our constituencies are waiting to prepare their grubby "Focus" leaflets to put through letter boxes. That is what they will do, regardless of the views of their Members of Parliament who, as I said, share the responsibility for 18 years of Thatcherism. What about the Conservatives? If there is—as I trust that there will not be—a substantial reduction in the Government's majority this afternoon, that will bring the first smirks to their faces since May 1997. It will give great comfort to the people who are responsible for the entire problem facing the Government today, because the number of people on incapacity benefit today derives from the fiddling of the unemployment figures by the Conservative Government. I do not decry in any way the sincerity with which my hon. Friends approach this issue. However, they should consider the consequences of their actions this afternoon, because I sat here for 18 years under a Conservative Government and I do not want another. Just look at that hypocritical rabble now. The Conservatives were responsible for the issue and they are trying to cash in on it, but they have offered no solutions. They are beaten and battered, but they are hoping to drag something out of this afternoon.
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is normally an eloquent advocate of parliamentary democracy. The argument that he has just advanced is that his colleagues on the Government Benches should not listen to their consciences or to the arguments, but should vote now and go home. I hope that Labour Members will realise that that is a jaundiced view from the right hon. Gentleman and may be influenced by the fact that on 6 May, more people voted Liberal Democrat in his constituency than voted Labour. I shall not follow the two previous contributors with 30-year or even 300-year precedents. I wish to address the implications for the good management of business in this House now, which is as important as this Bill. I must correct the Secretary of State: the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman on social security made it clear that we thought that it would be necessary to have two days of debate for Report and Third Reading, because in Committee, there was not a single Labour Member who took a view different from the Government's on the issues. Dissenting Labour Members could not put forward their views in Committee and would wish to do so on Report. That is why the proceedings are so important and why we need time. I wish to offer a gentle and modest word of advice to the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench. They should show a little bit less of their macho aggression towards those who will be pleased by what may happen this afternoon, towards those who are genuinely in receipt of disability benefits and towards the groups that represent them. They are listening to this debate carefully, because they want to know what has happened to the Labour Government whom many of them supported in 1997. Surely the Government recognise that the attitude they have adopted is likely to cause more resentment, not less. A more thoughtful and responsive attitude would have been much more successful. What will the Secretary of State say to Labour Members who will have to go back to their constituencies this weekend and confess that they voted for a more devastating attack on the living standards of that particular group than even the Conservatives were prepared to make? That is the reality of the situation. The guillotine should not have been necessary and the Secretary of State was wrong. Had the proceedings continued in the early hours of Tuesday morning, we could have had about 10 more hours of discussion without affecting the business on Tuesday. We could have dealt adequately with all the issues, including those that will be raised today by Labour Back Benchers. Now he is allowing us just six hours.
David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)
rose—
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
I shall not give way because we are being brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Nobody else has taken interventions and I shall not do so, because I wish to get on with the debate.
David Blunkett (Labour, Sheffield, Brightside)
rose—
Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)
Order. I cannot have two Members standing at the same time.
Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)
Nobody—no Minister and no Whip—ever explained on behalf of the Government why it was necessary to stop the debate at that hour in the morning on Tuesday. The guillotine should not have been necessary, because we could have continued on Tuesday morning and given adequate attention to the Bill. It would be absurd for me to make an extensive speech at this stage, but I believe that the Government are wrong to try to steamroller the Bill through instead of sticking to the original proposal of a proper debate with plenty of time to enable all views to be heard. The Government will regret the impression that will be given by pursuing this course of action.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is quite wrong. The Government have not permitted six hours for debate on the Bill. They have in fact contemplated limiting debate to just three hours. The allocation of time motion is entitled to three hours in itself.
Ann Coffey (Labour, Stockport)
Sit down and let us get on with it then.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
No, I will not.
Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)
Order. When I call an hon. Member to speak, I expect him to be heard.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
Those who shout "sit down" should reflect on who is placing the motion before the House. Who seeks to curtail debate? The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave us an old Stalinist, new Labour speech. His complaint that he had endured 18 years of Thatcher government reminded me that many Members think that we have had, as of 4 May, 20 years of Thatcher's principles and government. The Government are utilising a guillotine to defeat proper debate on matters of conscience, judgment and the representative function. Across the Chamber, I see the nodding heads of the nodding donkeys. I have seen the same during 20 years in this House. The Government are seriously telling the House that around 60 Back-Bench Members have expressed dissent, but that they can be bundled out in one and a half hours. They are telling us that if they can shut up the House, there might be four and a half hours of debate. Notice how the Government are trying to swivel the finger of blame towards others when it points firmly at the Secretary of State who is proposing this extraordinary guillotine. I want to take apart one of the Secretary of State's arguments. He announced that the Bill spent 65 hours in Committee. Many Members sitting here have served in Committees lasting well over 100 hours. The new fashion of Government is no longer to seek consent or even to settle for acquiescence. The Crown in Downing street is prepared to ram through, in just 90 minutes, contentions that are matters of conscience and the representative function. Every hon. Member who votes for the guillotine will be saying that he or she accepts that he or she may have no freedom of speech to express his or her wishes and his or her judgment.
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
indicated dissent.
Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)
I see the hon. Lady baying at me, but if she reflects on what I am asking, she will see that this matter should be debated without a vicious guillotine. Members must weigh two propositions. Are they prepared to vote to deny themselves the ability to address these issues properly? That is the question that they must ask themselves. We shall see who goes through the Lobby, saying, on the one hand, "Yes we should not discuss this matter", but saying on the other hand, for the wider public, "We protest against this issue." There is a fundamental contradiction in voting for the motion. We hold it in our hands to send a message to the Government that including guillotine motions in the time for consideration of the Bill—only six hours, including three for the guillotine—is deceitful. That deceit is intended to screw down proper debate and reasoned opposition. When the Secretary of State says that he has allowed six hours, we all know that that is phooey. It is a monstrous demonstration of the Executive's control over the representative body of the electorate of the United Kingdom.
Richard Body (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Over the past 40 years, I have debated many guillotine motions, but I have never been so saddened as I am on this occasion. All of us know that the true purpose of a guillotine is to suppress debate. There can be no other reason for one. On this occasion, there should be plenty of time, because no right hon. or hon. Member has no disabled people in his or her constituency. The only way in which we can persuade the Government that this measure is unjust is by giving examples of case histories. By their nature, those must take some time to set out. To restrict debate is a cruel and a wrong device. I regret the guillotine motion enormously. Every Labour Member who wants to speak, and who will be prevented from expressing the concerns of constituents who will be affected by the Bill, must protest. However they vote later, they ought to vote against this motion, which is as wicked a guillotine as has ever fallen on the House.
Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)
The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) have always spoken against guillotine motions. They spent 18 years supporting the Tory Government, but arguing against those motions, so there is nothing new there. I understand their views, which are well held—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Members did not vote for them. Indeed, they were something of a bother to the previous Administration and they are entitled to take their view. However, it is important to point out that by 3am on Tuesday morning, we were halfway through all the amendments that had been put down for debate. It does not do anyone any good to discuss—[Interruption.]
Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)
Order. I do not want any interventions from the Front Bench.
Alistair Darling (Labour, Edinburgh Central)
It does not do any of us any good to start debating such an important matter after being up all night, having discussed dozens of issues, and in that state of mind. I have been here only 13 years, but I know a filibuster when I see one and I saw what was happening on Monday night. We are ensuring this afternoon that the majority of the House has adequate time to debate what is an important issue. I now turn to the two arguments of the two Opposition parties. On consultation, I must point out, as I dare say that it will come up later, that I am sorry that some members of the disability benefits forum decided that they could no longer serve. I was encouraged by the fact that they wrote to me on the same day that they resigned, saying that despite their differences—there had been differences—they wanted to come back and discuss the detailed proposals as well as others. Some of the members of the forum have already been in the Department and one group is coming tomorrow afternoon to discuss service delivery. I am sorry that those people decided to leave, but the door is always open to anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of our welfare reform. I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). People voted for the Labour party in May 1997 because it created the welfare state in the 1940s, and we believe in the welfare state now. We were elected to clean up the mess that the Tory party left us. The Labour party has introduced measure after measure to combat poverty and the causes of poverty. I can deal quite simply with the Liberal Democrats. One of the most important steps that we have taken to combat poverty for everyone, including disabled people, is the new deal. The Liberal Democrats opposed the means of funding that new deal. They cannot pretend today that they are the friends of those who have benefited from the new deal without admitting that, if they had had their way, there would have been no new deal in the first place. I sense that the majority of Members in the House want to get on to debate the important matters before us. I am happy to do so and we should now proceed to do that, I hope without a Division and without further delay.