HC Deb 11 December 1980 vol 995 cc1084-9

Considered in Committee.

[MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

4.13 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The Committee is in some difficulty on this occasion. With regard to almost all social security measures during the previos Parliament and in this Parliament so far, the Department has issued notes which have made life a little easier for hon. Members who wish to table amendments. I am sure that you will appreciate that there is considerable difficulty in tabling amendments to this Bill. You will notice that no amendments have been tabled in the name of the Government or of any Conservative Back Bencher. Labour Back Benchers have had considerable difficulty in tabling amendments as well as in trying to ensure debates on various important topics.

I draw your attention, Mr. Weatherill, to amendment No. 1, standing in my name, which was an attempt to ensure that the Committee would have a proper debate on why it was necessary for the procedures to be rushed in order that all the stages on the Bill be taken today. New clause 2, to which my name is attached, was an attempt to ensure that we could have a debate on the whole question of the upper limit. Because of the difficulty in tabling amendments, neither proposal has been selected.

Is it possible within the selection of amendments to debate the central question why this measure should be stamped through the House within a week, and also the second question of the upper limit, which would enable us to make more sense of many of our earlier amendments with regard to alternative ways of raising revenue? I ask for your guidance on these matters.

The Chairman

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an extremely complicated Bill. Fortunately, it is not for me to give guidance on it. That is a matter for the Government. The hon. Gentleman's amendments were not selected, but I can tell him that it will be in order for him to raise his points in the debate on clause 1 stand part.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am extremely grateful for the ruling that you have just given with regard to new clause 2. That may not be unconnected with the point about notes on clauses, which are almost traditional in respect of social security measures. Is there a printing error in the list of amendments? As you said, the Bill is complex, and it raises £1 billion of finance via a form of taxation. Can you say whether some amendments are missing because they did not reach the printer in time, or whether there is a separate sheet? I am not the only hon. Member to notice that not one amendment has been tabled by a Conservative Member. I just wonder whether they tabled them too late or whether, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), they were waiting for the notes on clauses. This is an astonishing situation — [Interruption.] — and it is no good the Secretary of State pooh-poohing the matter. It is not without significance that not one amendment by a Conservative Member appears on the Amendment Paper.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)

Perhaps I can reply to the question about why my hon. Friends have not tabled amendments. I am a little puzzled about the notes on clauses. I have been advised that we gave infractions for 30 copies of the notes on clauses to be placed in the Vote Office, and I have been informed that they were sent yesterday. I must tell the House that for some reason they do not appear to be available in the Vote Office. They were sent by my department to the Vote Office, and urgent inquiries are being made to ascertain why they are not available for hon. Members. They are intended as a help, as I am sure, Mr. Weatherill, you will understand. In a sense they are help offered by the Department, but they are not an essential part of the Bill.

Mr. Rooker

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. This is the first social security measure either in the previous Parliament or in this one whose Committee stage has been taken on the the Floor of the House. Previously members of the Committee have been known, and the Department has provided addressed copies to them. If the Secretary of State has slipped in 30 copies to the Vote Office without telling anyone—[Hon. Members: "He has not."] They are not there, but the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he intended to slip them in. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and myself, as Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, have not received them, nor has any of my hon. Friends. Until copies are available for hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, may I request that we have suspension of the proceedings?

The Chairman

We cannot do that. My responsibility is to select the amendments that are submitted. In answer to his former point of order, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not look at the names on the amendments. I look to ascertain whether they are in order. I do not know from which part of the House they come.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

I recognise your difficulties, Mr. Weatherill, and I realise that the problem is not ore of your creation, but one created by the Government. Over the last week or two the Government have slipped through a series of measures rapidly and often by sleight of hand which have been discovered by public and other pressure. They introduced his Bill on Monday, with the Committee stage to be taken on Thursday, and they have failed to provide the necessary information for Members on both sides of the House in the customary way.

I understand your difficulties in relation to suspending the sitting, Mr. Weatherill, but it is within the bounds of the Government's discretion, in view of this situation, in view of their failure to give their Back Benchers an opportunity to table amendments, and in view of apparent inability to reconsider the Bill and to get it right at Committee stage, for them either to withdraw the Bill or 10 proceed only to the Committee stage and leave the remaining stages for another day. We are being asked not only to rush through the Bill within three days of its being introduced, but to consider the remaining stages in one day. That is unprecedented; and to compound that, the Government have failed to give us the correct information in order for us to be able to continue the debate. I ask the Secretary of State to say either that he will withdraw the Bill or that we shall not sit beyond 10 o'clock tonight.

Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It is a fairly recent practice on the part of Governments of both colours to make available notes on clauses. As I understand it, that is purely at the discretion of the Government of the day. In my view, this Bill is exceptional in that it is accompanied by the Government Actuary's report, which gives full information as to the financial implications of the Bill, not quite clause by clause but virtually clause by clause. In view of that, and in view of the full explanation that was given to the whole House on Second Reading earlier this week, the Opposition are on weak ground in trying to pursue this point.

With regard to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the absence of amendments from this side of the House, it could be that, having studied the Bill and having heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill, Conservative Members were satisfied and did not wish to table any amendments.

Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I entirely agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Buchan) that this in no way your responsibility. However, I disagree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he can recall any precedents on this matter? I think he will agree that when I was Secretary of State for Social Services notes on clauses were circulated on every matter concerning health or social security. Simply to have the Actuary's report is an entirely different matter. We are dealing here with a situation in which a Bill is being rushed through the House, and putting Back Benchers at a great disadvantage. Is that not in line with the action that was taken earlier this week, when a statement was made in reply to a Select Committee report, when the Chairman of that Committee was not informed that a statement would be made? Is it not a reasonable request that if the Secretary of State has prepared the notes on clauses the House should stand adjourned until it has had an opportunity to see them? He intended hon. Members to see them, and he wishes us to see them, so let us see them before we proceed with the debate

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have said that this is a highly technical Bill. The House depends on precedent to a great degree. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who was Secretary of State for Social Services in the Labour Government, pointed out that for several years notes on clauses have been provided. It is no good the present Secretary of State saying that they are not essential to the Bill, and that the Bill can proceed without them. The fact remains that it is a well-established precedent—a precedent to which the Secretary of State subscribes.

I do not think that it is unreasonable, in order to ensure that the precedent is followed, to suggest that this sitting should be suspended so that the information can be provided, read and comprehended. If the public at large heard this discussion, they would say that we were daft to carry on in this way. Apparently, the Secretary of State wants to help the House, but he cannot do so because of a procedural difficulty. I ask you, Mr. Weatherill, to consider suspending the sitting for as long as it will take to get the notes here and give us time to absorb them. I suggest that an hour would probably be sufficient. If the notes were here, we could probably peruse them sufficiently within half an hour.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Perhaps I can help the House. When I convey to hon. Members the information that I have they may feel that they could have done more to help themselves. The notes on clauses have been in the Library since yesterday. There is a notice to that effect in the Library. The Vote Office, which is an office of the House, and not my Department, said that it was unable to accept the notes, and they were therefore placed in the Library.

Hon. Members will know that it has been the practice of the Library for many years to prepare notes for the guidance of Members. It does not seem to be unreasonable to suggest that in these circumstances hon. Members might have informed themselves of the notes that were in the Library. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Weatherill that we should make progress with the Bill. The amendments that have been tabled by Labour Members are abundantly clear, and it is clear that those hon. Members who have tabled amendments have understood the Bill admirably. They are seeking to make changes, and there is no reason to doubt the capacity of Labour Members to debate their amendments successfully. We shall try to give replies that, I hope, will satisfy the House.

Several Hon. Members rose—

The Chairman

Order. Before I take any further points of order, I think that I should make my position clear. My responsibility is to ensure that those official documents that are necessary for the debate are in the Vote Office. I am not responsible for guidance notes or anything of that sort, so points of order to me on that subject are irrelevant. I cannot deal with them. I think that we should proceed with the Bill, because we have a very heavy day ahead of us.

Mr. Buchan

We understand your difficulties, Mr. Weatherill, and we accept your ruling. However, as you have expressed it very well in the past, it is partly your responsibility to ensure fairness to both sides of the House, and to ensure a free, well-informed and open debate. We are concerned about that and about the opportunity, under the guidance notes, to put forward the right amendments.

The Secretary of State is more than half disingenuous. I have served in several Departments, but this is the first time that I have been involved with the social security Department. It is also the first time that a Minister has failed to draw to the attention of Front Bench speakers the availability of notes. That responsibility is his, and it has not been fulfilled.

Some of us have been working hard in the Library for the past three days trying to understand some of the complexities of the Bill. At no time were the notes brought to our attention. However it was done, there was certainly a slip-up in the delivery of information to the Opposition Front Bench.

The easy way out of the difficulty is for the Secretary of State to join us in asking for a suspension so that we can study the notes and, if necessary, prepare manuscript amendments which, I hope, you will consider carefully, Mr. Weatherill.

4.30 pm
Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Occasionally papers are delayed in Committee upstairs and the practice is to adjourn for a short while so that hon. Members may study the papers, because that expedites the proceedings.

An eight-page document is now available, though the Secretary of State did not know when he arrived here that copies were available in the Library. If he had known, he would have informed the Committee. He became aware of it only as a result of information that reached him later.

The purpose of the change in our procedures and the provision of notes on clauses is to enable hon. Members to understand clauses better, and it is, therefore, a method of expediting discussion. A suspension of the sitting for half an hour would allow some of us to obtain the document, and we could return for a better-informed discussion.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. A number of us are staggered that the Opposition want time to consider the notes. The whole Bill appears to us to be childishly simple. Two documents have been made available in the Vote Office, and I assure the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), whom we welcome to the Opposition Front Bench, that the only reason why my hon. Friends and I have not tabled amendments is that we understand the Bill with great clarity and are more than satisfied with it. It is unnecessary for us to consider wasting the time of the Committee to allow Labour Members the chance to absorb what they should know anyway if they were on top of their jobs.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We all understood and agreed with your ruling on your responsibility as regards papers in the Vote Office, but beyond that the Chair has a responsibility in relation to established precedents of the House. The Secretary of State has told us candidly that a precedent has been broken. His first explanation was that there had been a breakdown in communications between the Elephant and Castle and Westminster. The second explanation was that, for some reason or other, the Vote Office refused to accept the papers.

That sort of thing has happened before. We understand that the notes are available. I urge a suspension of the sitting, because you know, Mr. Weatherill, as well as I that a short suspension can often save an enormous amount of time later. We do not want to go on like this all night, as we did on a previous occasion which you may remember.

If, Mr. Weatherill, you will not accept a suspension proposal, will you accept a motion to report progress? I agree that we have not made much progress yet, but such a motion is one of the established ways of coping with the sort of difficulty that the Secretary of State has put us in. I can remember many precedents—for example, on the Abortion Bill in the 1960s — when the device of reporting progress, however much or little progress had actually been made, has been used so that Members can study a Bill and get on smoothly. Clearly, we shall not get on smoothly as if we go on as we are.

The Chairman

I must rule on that major point of order. I cannot accept a motion to report progress. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have not made any progress. I am aware that guidance notes have sometimes been put out by Departments, but sometimes they have not. It is not an established precedent that every Bill should have guidance notes.

The most helpful suggestion that I can make is that we should proceed with the first group of amendments—the discussion will probably last for at least an hour—and that hon. Members who have not seen the document, which has been available, I understand, in the Library for day, should take the opportunity to look at it. If they wish to submit manuscript amendments, I shall certainly consider them. Shall we proceed with the first group of amendments?

Forward to