§ Mr. OrmeOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, there are two Social Security Bills passing through Parliament at the same time. What makes that unique is that they are similar Bills covering the same areas for debate in many instances. I refer to the Social Security (No. 1) Bill and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. [Laughter.] I do not know what Government Members find so funny. We are talking about benefits that affect millions of people in this country.
We know that it is impossible to debate exactly the same detailed subjects on both Bills. The problem is that they are both at a stage where amendments can be made, but the amendments are proving contradictory. The Social Security (No. 2) Bill amends the Social Security (No. 1) Bill, which has not yet passed through the House of Lords and is still in Committee. Therefore, debate may be a travesty of parliamentary procedure.
I have looked at pages 491 to 493 of "Erskine May", and they do not appear to cover this unique circumstance. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this matter because we are talking about amendments to a Bill that affects the disabled, the sick and pensioners. As was pointed out yesterday by Lord Elwyn-Jones in another place, the Government are in a shambles over both Social Security Bills.
I believe that this is an important constitutional issue, and one that I have not encountered in the time that I have been in Parliament. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling at the earliest opportunity.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) did me the courtesy of giving me notice, in detail, this morning of his point of order and, therefore, I have had an opportunity to consider the matter and to study other pages of "Erskine May".
It is true that there are two Bills passing through the House which interrelate, although they are not of identical substance. Had they been, the second Bill could not have proceeded. In such circumstances, it is not a matter on which I can rule. It is for the House to do its best to ensure that, when the second Bill reaches its final stage, it does not conflict in detail with the first Bill. But that is not a duty that falls upon the Chair. It is a duty for the House. There is no way in which I can intervene.
§ Mr. OrmeI thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Does it not point to the fact that until the Social Security (No. 1) Bill has been dealt with by Parliament we should not proceed with the Social Security (No. 2) Bill? It would be a travesty of Parliament to do so. There was an amendment discussed yesterday in another place which related directly to the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.
I cannot refer in any detail to Committee proceedings, but I feel that the Government have a responsibility, in the interests of Parliament, to stop procedure on the second Bill until the first Bill has passed through Parliament.
§ The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely understand your ruling on the matter, but it might have been relevant if the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) had pointed out that the passage of "Erskine May" to which he drew attention came under the general heading "Introduction and First Reading" in the Commons. If there had been any question about whether the two Bills were in some way inconsistent and could not be proceeded with, the right hon. Gentleman would have been more than a fortnight late in raising the matter. The Bill is now in Committee. It appears that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, means that the Committee is perfectly in order to proceed with it.