HL Deb 25 March 1998 vol 587 cc1226-8
Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

  • Clauses 1 to 3,
  • Clauses 9 and 10,
  • Clause 40,
  • Clause 11,
  • Clause 41,
  • Clause 12,
  • Clauses 18 and 19,
  • Clauses 4 to 8,
  • Schedule 1,
  • Clause 13,
  • Schedules 2 and 3,
  • Clause 42,
  • Clauses 14 and 15,
  • Schedule 4,
  • Clauses 16 and 17,
  • Schedule 5,
  • Clauses 20 to 24,
  • Clause 35,
  • Clause 59,
  • Clauses 25 and 26,
  • Clause 43,
  • Clauses 27 and 28,
  • Clause 44,
  • Clauses 29 to 34,
  • Clauses 36 and 37,
  • Clause 39,
  • Clauses 45 to 58,
  • Clauses 60 to 69,
  • Clause 38,
  • Clauses 73 and 74,
  • Clauses 70 to 72,
  • Clauses 75 to 80,
  • Schedules 6 and 7,
  • Clause 81.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Renton

My Lords, having carefully studied the amazing sequence which the Minister has inserted on the Order Paper for discussion of the clauses and schedules of the Social Security Bill, may I ask the noble Baroness how she justifies this confusing disorder? It is not the first time in recent weeks that we have had such a Motion. We had one on the Crime and Disorder Bill, for example, and it did not help very much. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how she justifies jumping to and fro with clauses and schedules? It really cannot help the Committee stage to go smoothly.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, perhaps I may say that with her customary courtesy the noble Baroness was kind enough to send me a note which purported to explain the listing which now appears on the Order Paper. It transpired that further changes were necessary. One has only to look at the Order Paper to realise that it really is a rather extraordinary mess and will be rather difficult to deal with at Committee stage. Nonetheless, I think that its present form is the best that can be achieved.

In the light of the Statement that we shall have tomorrow—we may well have a great deal more social security legislation in the future—will the noble Baroness give an assurance that we shall not be faced with a similar situation again? Does she agree that the initial drafting of the Bill most certainly should have been in a more logical order?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I have very real sympathy with the points made by both the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Higgins. The Bill is complex. It introduces unified decision-making and appeals arrangements across the range of departmental business. That means that many of the provisions are mirrored in a number of different clauses—on housing benefit, child benefit and vaccine damage.

To help the flow of debate, the order for consideration brings together clauses which cover the same issue, even though they may appear by clause number in different parts of the Bill, but in relation to different aspects of the department's business. For example, Clause 10 covers the revision of benefit decision. Those provisions are mirrored in Clause 40 in relation to child support decisions so they have been brought together for the purposes of debate.

We have not changed the order in which the main issues of the Bill are laid out. Part I deals with decision-making and appeals; Part II deals with national insurance matters; Part III deals with various benefit issues; and that order remains. We have grouped the clauses and schedules on the same subject in a sensible way.

I have two further points. First, the proposed order does not mirror the way in which the Bill was handled in the Commons Committee because the structure for the Commons Committee was even more complex, with even more clauses moved around. This grouping mirrors the way in which the Bill was handled at Report stage in the Commons.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, kindly indicated, this was agreed in consultation with the official Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Opposition Front Bench. As regards the complexity of the drafting, and as regards lawyers and parliamentary draftsmen, I suspect that as a distinguished lawyer the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has more insight into that aspect than I have.

Lord Renton

My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' leave to speak again, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation, express my sympathy with her, and hope that the Government will prevail upon the parliamentary draftsmen and those instructing them in the months to come to endeavour to simplify the Bill in order to bring the same matters together to a greater extent so that we do not have this darting to and fro.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, given what the noble Baroness said, why cannot exactly the same effect be achieved without debating the clauses and schedules in a certain order? I accept that schedules are seriatim, although interposed between rather odd arrangements of clauses. Why cannot exactly the same effect be achieved by the grouping of amendments?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, on the first point, I am happy to do my best. We all want that. It is not a problem that is new to this Government: it has been experienced in the past. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is not only for the convenience, but to the transparency of business in this House that everyone is secure as to where we are going and why we are doing this.

There is a difficulty in legislation. Matters can either be grouped by, as it were, topic, like headings for departmental business, or by issue, as in appeals or reviews. The problem that there are two ways of dividing matters has arisen in relation to this measure.

To turn to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. This approach was regarded on Report in the Commons as the most convenient and transparent way of handling this Bill. That is why we are continuing those procedures.

On Question, Motion agreed to.