§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of the House [25th February] be supplemented as follows:—
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion not later than at the expiration of the period of three hours beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments.
2. If at the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments have not been completed, then, for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
§ Mr. Reginald Freeson (Brent, East)It is interesting to note that the motion has not even been spoken to on its being presented to the House. That is because it is nonsense. The business before us 796 cannot possibly justify the motion, and the Government are making fools of themselves in introducing it. I do not mind that, but they should not thereby make a fool of the House.
How can the Lords amendments possibly require a guillotine motion? It is necessary only to read them to answer that question. Of course, important issues were raised in another place when the Bill was discussed, but those issues were not raised by Government spokesmen. In trying to improve the Bill, Opposition peers ranged over much of the ground of reform that Labour Members had covered in this place. Opposition peers tried to restore the earnings link for pension increases, to increase maternity and death grants, to improve child benefits, to increase retirement pensions, to abolish the earnings rule for pensioners and to improve invalidity benefits. Those were some of the changes that Labour peers sought, as Labour Members had done in this place. Every one of their amendments was defeated by the Government.
All that we have from another place is six amendments that cannot possibly explain the motion before us. Amendment No. 1 seeks safeguards against overpayment of benefit into bank accounts and repayment by automated credit transfer. Amendment No. 2 provides that maintenance payments should be included when assessing supplementary benefit. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are merely technical.
That is the measure of the great issues which the Government have put before us. Such is their potential for major debate that the Government have introduced a timetable motion. It will be 797 debated for anything up to one hour—probably longer than it would take to consider all six amendments.
The Government have gone guillotine mad. When we sought in Committee to expose the attacks on pensioners and others that the Bill represents, the Government guillotined debate. Soon after that, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, representing a crude and far-reaching assault on the basic principles of the Welfare State, was introduced. That, too, was quickly guillotined.
On Second Reading I recall asking:
do the Government intend to abandon statutory uprating of benefits…in relation to prices as well as earnings? "—[Official Report, 20 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 997.]I received my answer two months later. With hindsight, one can see that it was a shifty, dishonest answer. That was when the Government first put a guillotine on the Bill. The Secretary of State said:in order to "—mark the words—allay anxiety, I should say that the Government have no plans to introduce new clauses in Committee or on Report that would represent major new departures of policy."—[Official Report, 25 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 1037.]Four weeks later, the Secretary of State presented the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, which did exactly what I had feared and what the Government had denied. It broke the link with prices. It reduced and abolished benefits for the unemployed, the industrially injured, the disabled, pregnant mothers and others.The Secretary of State, the Minister for Social Security and the Under-Secretary of State must each one of them have known the contents of the Bill. They must even have contemplated incorporating the clauses in the Bill that is again before us. The Bill must have been in draft at the moment when assurances to the contrary were being given in the previous guillotine debate.
When we reflect on the conduct of Ministers over the Bill and over the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, we start to understand why, in this its last stage, the Bill is guillotined yet again. There is no rational reason, hence no speech from the Minister for Social Security in presenting the motion to the House. However, there is an irrational reason. 798 The Government are running scared of open debate. They have the votes. Liberal "wets" are included as well as Tory hardliners. However, they know that they have lost the arguments on the Bill, just as they have lost them on the even more crude Social Security (No. 2) Bill.
With the help of an uninformative press, some of which has begun to wake up too late to what the Government are up to, Ministers have sought to railroad both Bills through Parliament, in the hope that public awareness of their demolition job on our welfare system would remain unaroused.
Even now, the full impact of their legislation on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and others in greatest need has not been felt. And are not the Government pleased about that! The Minister for Social Security constantly boasts of how few letters he receives on the pension cuts that he is introducing. I imagine that the Under-Secretary of State, reputedly a liberal Tory, does not have so many penfriends these days. However, to try to ensure that their intentions get the least possible exposure, down comes the bloody guillotine blade again. That is being done for no reason, bearing in mind the business that is before the House.
The guillotine motion is about fear. The Government fear that we shall once more expose their intention to reduce retirement pensions and to make 1¼ million people on supplementary benefit worse off under the Bill. They fear that we shall expose their intention to swindle elderly people out of two weeks' increased pensions by delaying the uprating date in November. They fear that we shall expose again their denial of the full increase due to pensioners—a loss of 50p a week—last November. They fear that we shall expose the purpose of clause 1, which is to cut invalidity pensions, disablement pensions, attendance allowances, invalid care allowances and war pensions. Its purpose is to cut all these benefits for 1½ million people and their families, as well as to cut retirement pensions for 10 million people.
We should remind ourselves that on Second Reading the Secretary of State promised to protect the pensioner against price increases. The Under-Secretary of 799 State repeated that promise several times in Committee on 7 February 1980. She said that
The Government have given a firm pledge that pensioners will be protected against increasing prices.Later, in somewhat heavier prose, the hon. Lady said thatthe Government had given a firm pledge of their firm intention to protect pensioners against price increases and to let them share in the increasing prosperity of the country."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 February 1980; c. 263–4.]The Minister for Social Security joined in on 5 February by givinga guarantee to the pensioner in terms of prices."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 February 1980; c. 212.]One should note the word "guarantee". Before the guillotine comes down again, I should like to ask whether those pledges can be confirmed. I have given only one or two examples. Such statements were made many times. Can they be confirmed by an assurance that the rate of inflation, now running at 21.8 per cent., not the 16.5 per cent. that was forecast two months ago, will be covered by the uprating of retirement, invalidity, disability and war pensions next November?Before we leave the Bill, with or without a guillotine, we are entitled to an answer to a question that is crucial to millions of our constituents. Inflation is running at 5 per cent. above the figure forecast by the Government for the pensions increase next November. If pensioners are not covered for the increase in inflation, they will lose nearly £2 a week. They will lose in real terms nearly £2 a week if the pension uprating decision to be announced by way of a draft order to be presented to the House—I think, in July—does not include figures that cover the rate of inflation now being experienced and expected to run for the next few months.
I realise that it is not possible to predict accurately the increase in prices in the year to November 1980. I realise that this cannot be done even now. However, if the indices continue to rise at the same rate as they have done since November 1979, the price increase between the pension uprating last November and the forthcoming one in November will be 24 to 25 per cent. On that basis, the 16.5 per cent. increase for long-term benefits 800 announced in the Budget will result in an 8 per cent. shortfall in real value as measured by retail prices.
The Government have proposed a new weekly pension rate from November of £27.15 for a single person and £43.45 for a married couple. Even allowing for inflation at the present rate of 21.8 per cent. rather than the 24 to 25 per cent. figure that present indices suggest will be the case, the new pension rates necessary to maintain real value should be £28.35 and £45.35 respectively for single persons and married couples.
I shall gladly give way to enable the Minister to endorse those figures and to repeat previous undertakings, firm pledges and guarantees in specific cash terms. That is what we are entitled to expect on behalf of retirement pensioners and others to whom I have referred. We are entitled to know now that the Government intend to cover the full rate of inflation. If we get no response, no guillotine motion or series of guillotine motions on this or the Social Security (No. 2) Bill will stop us from declaring, loudly and clearly until the press wake up and publish what we are telling the country, that the Government are knowingly, not accidentally, cheating millions of the poorest people in our community. That is what the Social Security Bills are really about. They attack the very people in need of the greatest protection, especially at this time of economic difficulty.
It is a matter for consideration whether the Government's conduct should be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner or even be subject to action in the courts. This is a shameful period. We are becoming a less generous people. The posture and policies of the Government are encouraging a campaign of hostility against poor people and the welfare services. Such hostility is being elevated to a political virtue as the Government put their anti-warfare legislation through with a series of guillotines.
The phoney liberalism of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State is over. If they wish to maintain the reputation with which they presented themselves to the country until they took ministerial office, they should resign and leave the Government. We shall vote against the guillotine motion. It is nonsense. There is no need for it. It represents a policy and legislation that are a 801 disgrace to the House. We shall oppose it for as long as we can.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), I feel that we should oppose the guillotine motion. This is a bad Bill. We should do everything possible to prevent its further progress. Ministers have not answered a series of questions which have been posed on this Bill and on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. If we have no right, as an Opposition, to stop the Bill from going through the House, we have a right to hear answers to our questions.
My right hon. Friend has already asked what action the Government will take if their figure for inflation in November is wrong. In the Standing Committee on the No. 2 Bill, the Secretary of State has admitted that the figure of 16½ per cent. is probably wrong. But there has been no indication of what course the Government will take if the estimate given in the Budget is inaccurate. The House and the country have a right to know whether the pensioners, the unemployed, the sick and the disabled will be cheated this autumn of the increases necessary to keep pace with inflation.
Due to the passage of the two Bills through the House, no effective work has been carried out on the uprating of the benefits in November. It is, therefore, possible for the Minister to change the figures that are to be used. A decision could be made that the estimate of 16½ per cent. inflation was wrong and that it should be replaced by a higher figure which is now much more likely, as the Secretary of State admitted. The shortfall could be made good before it occurs. As far as one can judge, the shortfall will be much bigger than last year. I suggest that the Government should make good the shortfall in the uprating straight away.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)My hon. Friend said that the Government had not started on the uprating. I do not know what evidence he has of that. During our debates on the No. 2 Bill, I produced a leaflet commenting on this Bill before it had returned to the House from the other place. That was an official Government leaflet, so my hon. Friend might like to ask the Minister whether any work has yet started on this Bill.
§ Mr. BennettI am certain, on the basis of what we discovered about the No. 2 Bill, that a great deal of work has been done, but I understand that the Department has not yet got round to issuing the books with the figures in them. Therefore, it is still possible for the Government to change them if they wish. They should take into account the fact that the Secretary of State now admits that the forecast level of inflation of 16½ per cent. is probably wrong. But, if the Government want to continue with that, they should make clear to the House and the country what they will do this year if the figure is wrong. The levels of inflation being experienced now mean that people need the extra money urgently. It should not be a matter of their waiting until next January and then the Government saying "We do not think we should bother." The Government should give us a clear undertaking now about what will happen if the 16½ per cent. is wrong.
Why did the Government put off the November uprating this year by two weeks? They have never answered that question. The Opposition have said that it has been done in order to save enough money to pay for the Christmas bonus. The Government deny that and say that we are being unfair, but they still have not given us a reason. There is possibly a reason for putting it off by six days. The Government can claim that the date has been creeping forward by one day each year, and by two days in leap years, but they have given us no clear reason for putting it off this year. They should tell us the reason. If they do not, we and the country will believe that it is simply a way of saving money and of paying for the Christmas bonus. There could be few things meaner than asking pensioners to pay for their own Christmas bonus, which is the clear implication of our receiving no answer.
Then there is the whole question of the regulations. Those of us who sat through most of the Committee proceedings know that a large part of the Bill depends on regulations. The Minister should tell us how soon the regulations will be available and to what extent outside bodies that are particularly interested in them will have a chance to make representations before they are laid before the House, with no opportunity for them to be amended.
803 There is also the question of the long-term unemployed. Almost every time the Opposition proposed in Committee that the regulations should be altered or that a little extra money should be spent here or there, Ministers said that they were very sorry but there was no extra money. They almost implied that if they could squeeze out that little bit of extra money their main priority would be the long-term unemployed. But, at the very moment they were expressing concern about the long-term unemployed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State were plotting to make sure that the long-term unemployed took a cut, with the so-called abatement of their benefit to take tax into account
We all know that the long-term unemployed who are on benefit are close to the tax threshold anyway, and if they were subject to tax they would not have a 5 per cent. cut. This autumn, the long-term unemployed will have a phoney rate of inflation applied to them, which will result in one cut, and they will suffer 5 per cent. abatement, so-called, which is basically a cut. Yet Ministers expressed great concern in Committee about their plight
The Government seem to be committed to increasing not only unemployment but the number of people subjected to long-term unemployment. Therefore, we should have a clear statement of what they will do about the long-term unemployed.
The Minister told us repeatedly in Committee that it was necessary for the whole country to tighten its belt, but he never said what sacrifice he, other Ministers or people with the same levels of income would make. They are the fat cats of this land. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us what sacrifices he expects the better-off to make if he expects sacrifices to be made by pensioners, the unemployed, the sick and the others who are least able to cope with the problems of inflation. I challenge him to tell us tonight whether he has made any sacrifice. Many people seem to think that he is one of those who sail from one success to another, at least financially, with never a concern for the least well-off. I hope that tonight we can hold up the Bill a little longer and that at long last we shall receive some 804 answers to our questions before the Bill is passed.
§ Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)I, too, oppose the motion, as I have opposed previous guillotine motions on other Government measures. I have heard it argued that there is some merit in timetable motions for all Bills and all procedures. I think that it was the Minister for Social Security who suggested that that might be a useful innovation. But there are arguments the other way. While it may appear attractive to have timetables for everything, there are no argument and no support for introducing that procedure by stealth, by simply applying it on every Bill and crashing legislation through with the Government's majority. That may become standard procedure if we are not careful.
It seems that even before a Bill goes into Committee the Government are asking themselves at what stage they should introduce a guillotine. They have a guillotine at the back of their minds before the Committee discussion even begins. I shall not support that approach or the approach outlined by the Minister when he advocated timetables as a general rule. We certainly do not want them introduced by stealth, with the Government saying that they should use their obscene majority to crash legislation through the House every time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that the amendments still to be discussed were important. Neither Social Security Bill has been adequately discussed. Certainly this one has not. We only began to discuss it, and we did not get down to the nitty-gritty and the detail as we should wish to have done if we had had a more leisurely discussion and more time to consult the voluntary organisations, which are still in the throes of discussing it, or the trade union movement, some of whose members have not even heard of it. Had the normal time been allowed for discussion, the necessary process of consultation between an Opposition and all the interested bodies would have gone on. It would have been much more fruitful, and better legislation would have resulted.
This Bill was still in Committee, still being amended, when the second Bill, 805 repealing parts of this one, was introduced. Both had guillotines on them. We were guillotining one Bill in Committee while we were discussing another and put a guillotine on that as well. That repealed bits of it, and the Government put a guillotine on that as well. That must be crazy.
With my simple mind, I thought at one stage that part of the reason for the awful rush was to enable the Prime Minister to receive a standing ovation at this year's party conference. She will need something. By then even the "wets" will be getting fed up. The Government are beginning to look too extreme even for some of their own followers.
The two Social Security Bills may well be what the Prime Minister needs. Therefore, the Government had to take no chances that they would be left over. They had to be got through so that the right hon. Lady could announce how tough she had been with the unions, with the scroungers, the work-shy, the malingerers, the cheats and the thieves—and all the other names that the Tories have for ordinary working people. We would call them people, beneficiaries, pensioners. The Tories have their own terms. They call the unemployed work-shy, the sick scroungers and those on disability or invalidity pension malingerers. I can see the Tory women at that conference, in their salad bowl hats, screaming their standing ovations to high heaven when these announcements are made.
There was never any justification for the guillotine. Here I should like to correct something that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I am aware that not only has something been done about the up-rating, but that the new pension books were being printed before the Social Security Bill had ended its Committee stage. Those books were being printed and contained figures mentioned in the Social Security (No. 2) Bill before we had even begun to discuss that measure.
Some of us have seen those books and handouts. A circular was prepared by the Department containing the relevant figures while they were still being discussed, and the discussion has not finished yet. Those books were prepared in an arrogant and conceited way and with a contempt for parliamentary procedure. The Government seem to have said" We 806 will get this through. Do not worry. Get on with the printing, because nothing can stop us."
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North will find that a great deal has been done to implement the provisions of the Bills before they have even completed their passage through Parliament. If that is not contempt for our parliamentary set-up, nothing is. There is no way in which the Opposition can condone such conduct, because it brings parliamentary procedure into disrepute. If we allow that kind of conduct to become the norm, we are in trouble.
§ Mr. OrmeIs it not extraordinary that tonight the Bill will be passed and go on to become law, yet clause 1 contains a measure to change long-term benefits that will be altered in the House of Lords today or tomorrow? That means that we are debating a Bill the provisions of which are to be changed, and yet it will be passed tonight. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?
§ Mr. StallardOf course I do, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for making the position clear. Perhaps I was somewhat confused, just as are most people outside the House. Most people outside are still discussing the original Social Security Bill. Many people do not realise that parts of that original have already been repealed by the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, and neither Bill has yet completed its parliamentary progress. That must be the craziest situation that we have ever seen.
We were threatened with a number of precedents for the present situation, but none was found that was exactly analogous. Had the Government been able to find relevant precedents, they would have trotted them out and we would have seen them in the Tory press, which ignored the whole process until we reached clause 6 of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. There are no acceptable precedents for this kind of conduct by any Government. When people outside realise and recognise the extent of the contempt with which the Government have treated our parliamentary procedures, they will realise the nature of the Government.
Conservatives complain of our harping on the theme of the class issue. There is no greater example of the class-conscious approach of the Government 807 than these two Bills and the contempt with which the Government have treated the passage of both measures. That is class arrogance. The Conservatives appear to be saying "We can do as we like. We are the ruling class and we are in charge. There is no way that we will allow the Labour mob to interfere with our power."
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)My hon. Friend makes an important point when he speaks of class and the approach of the Tory Party to class interests once it is in power. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the Labour Party will not take kindly to criticism from the Tories when the next Labour Government look at issues objectively, and in the round, in an attempt to suit everybody's interests. What we should learn from the Government's treatment of these two Bills is that when we are next in power we must look after our own class, from the first day to the last. If we do that, the Tories will never get back to power.
§ Mr. StallardI am grateful for the timely intervention of my hon. Friend. I was about to say that these Bills make it possible for the Government to pay for the gifts which they gave to their own class in their first two Budgets. The Government have given big tax reliefs to their friends but nothing to the people with whom these Bills are chiefly concerned.
The Government have done nothing for those people. They have made matters worse for them. Not only does the Social Security (No. 2) Bill intend that some benefits should be liable to tax even though the people concerned would not have been liable to tax anyway, but the Government have abolished the 25 per cent. tax band. If many of the people affected by these Bills had been paying tax, they would have been taxed at that rate. Not only have the Government brought those people within the income tax system; they have decided to tax benefits. If that is not a class measure I do not know what is, because while they were planning to do that they were handing out millions of pounds in tax rebates to the people who put them where they are.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)My hon. Friend has mentioned the delay in paying the increase to pensioners in November. The Minister said during the Committee stage of the Social Security 808 (No. 2) Bill that that delay would save £125 million. I looked up the Defence Estimates and found that a nuclear submarine costs £140 million. Therefore, the £125 million saving, which is the result of robbing old-age pensioners—and the pensioners must be feeling very patriotic about it—is helping to build another nuclear submarine. The pensioners must be glad about that.
§ Mr. StallardI agree, and we could all find examples of millions of pounds being spent on obsolete equipment while at the same time millions of pounds are being taken from those who need it. That, of course, is the difference between the two major parties. We would have a different approach.
When the Government were accused of adopting a class approach to this legislation, we were told that the legislation was fair. It was said yesterday that this legislation would introduce an element of fairness into our society. What is fair about handing out millions of pounds to those who already have enough, while a sick man is taxed? This legislation will force many thousands of people into being means-tested in order to be eligible for supplementary benefit to which they were formerly entitled.
When we asked about that, we were told that there were some rough edges to the legislation. The Government call 110,000 people "rough edges". When we probed further, we were told that the proposed legislation was necessary to solve the country's economic plight, that there must be even sacrifices and that there must be sacrifices all round.
That evenness is demonstrated by the Government's nicking two weeks' pension increase from old people and refusing to make up the shortfall. The pensioners have been fiddled by an offer of a 16½ per cent. increase when inflation is running at 22 per cent. In four or five different ways, the Government have cheated the pensioners while giving big handouts at the other end of the scale.
Who can see fairness in that? Where is the even sacrifice? I ask the Minister to tell us what he has sacrificed. Let him compare his sacrifice with that being made by the unemployed, who will now be taxed on their benefits.
§ Mr. FreesonHave not Ministers given a firm pledge that pensioners will 809 be protected against increasing prices'? Does it follow that they will receive 16½ per cent.? Perhaps we shall hear tonight that there will be a cut-off point at 20 or 22 per cent.
§ Mr. StallardIf I have misjudged the Government I shall apologise but, God help us, there is no fear of that. Does the Minister have anything to say about pensioners and the link with the cost of living?
A number of questions must be answered and debated. Much more time is needed for the Bill. The Bill rests upon regulations, and we have not seen one. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is to be abolished. It is crucial that we understand what will take its place and what regulations will be introduced. I shall oppose the guillotine motion.
§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)I oppose the motion. This is the last stage in a shabby saga. The Government have yet again cut the time for discussing important issues. I was not a member of the Standing Committee on this Bill or the Social Security (No. 2) Bill. However, I must try to explain what the Government are seeking to do. Those who are affected by the Bill want to know what is going on, what is to happen to them and why. If ever there was a need for the fullest possible debate, it is on social security measures.
At the best of times, our social security system is complicated and confusing. In addition to the inevitable confusion caused by changes in the system, pensioners and many others affected by the measures are suspicious and angry. They have asked hon. Members "Why pick on us? We are not the best-off but the most disadvanaged. Why are we being picked upon by the Government?" The anger is possibly why the Government are anxious to cut debating time. They are anxious to escape the full wrath of those who are affected. There could be another reason. Perhaps Ministers have been forced by the Treasury to introduce the measures.
The provisions penalised pensioners in the shabbiest of ways. Many pensioners believe that the two weeks' delay in up-rating the pension before Christmas is a trick to stop them from realising what is happening. The same can be said about breaking the link with earnings.
810 The Government assume that the rate of inflation this autumn will be 16½ per cent. They are using inflation to achieve further cuts in the social security budget. They are taking advantage of the high rate of inflation to bring about even larger cuts in benefits. If the Government are wrong in the 16½ per cent. estimate—as I am sure they are—what will they do to put things right? They could introduce further legislation in the autumn and increase the Christmas bonus to pensioners. That would be a quick way to make an adjustment. In the long term, they must sort out the problem on a more satisfactory basis.
In spite of the guillotines on the Bills, many people are aware of what is going on. They are aware that the Government are using the economic situation as an excuse to cut social security benefits to disadvantaged people. The people will remember the Tory Government for giving money to the rich and better off and for using Bill after Bill to make the poorest and most disadvantaged people pay the price.
§ Mr. Reg Race (Wood Green)The Minister asked why the Opposition would vote against the guillotine motion. I laughed my socks off at that. If he does not understand why the Opposition are violently opposed to this Bill and the No. 2 Bill, he has not been educated much. We are opposed to the Bills because they are class measures designed to undermine the benefits of ordinary people in order to pay for massive assistance to the rich. That is the name of the game. The Bills will pay for defence spending and the madness of additional provision to blow us all up with new nuclear submarines and cruise missiles.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) referred to the rate of inflation. That is crucial to the upratings. I suspect that the Government do not believe that the inflation rate will fall to anything like 16½ per cent. in the foreseeable future. Why else should they want to talk to the TUC about wage restraint? That gives the game away. They know damned well that the rate of inflation will not drop to anything like 16½ per cent. in the foreseeable future. That is why they must push the Bill through and ensure that there is as little uprating as possible.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe Government want to start a type of concordat with the TUC and to talk about wages rather than anything else. What really bothers the Government about wages is the problem which is staring them in the face. They do not know how to get round it. It is that the pay increases to the police and the Armed Forces have been eroded by increases of, for example, 32 per cent. to the doctors. The police and the Armed Forces now want to step up their increases this year. The Government will have to use the money saved by the Bill to pay for such increases.
§ Mr. RaceI am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government are trying to buy off, head off—or decapitate before it raises its ugly head—the prospect of a rebellion in the next wages round. They will not succeed. Such measures as this will defeat them in the end. The TUC will not accept any quid pro quo on wages when Bills such as this are being introduced. No sane TUC general secretary will even begin to have discussions with the Government when such Bills are going through the House.
The Secretary of State made an interesting comment in Committee on the No. 2 Bill. He justified that Bill by saying that we needed to make financial savings and that those savings, together with the cuts in the social security budget, were necessary to restore incentive and dynamism. What connection has the Bill with incentives? The Oxford English Dictionary broadly defines the word "incentive" as persuading someone to produce more goods, to increase production and thereby to gain an advantage from doing so. What connection has the word "incentive" with cutting the rate of the old-age pension or, in the No. 2 Bill, cutting other benefits? It has no connection at all.
The Government are concerned with making financial savings at the expense of the poorest and weakest section of the community and with giving vast amounts of money to their rich friends. A single person earning £30,000 a year received more than £4,300 in tax concessions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Tory Budget in June last year and an additional £650 in the second Budget this year. That is 812 the sort of incentive that is being given to the Tories' rich friends.
The incentive and the dynamism that are supposedly being given to the old-age pensioners in our society is the incentive of having their benefits taken away, torn up and nullified. If the Minister wants one very good reason why we shall oppose the guillotine motion tonight, it is the reason that I have given
§ 8.2 pm
§ The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice)If there were any reason to oppose the guillotine motion, it would have to be based on an argument that there was insufficient time allowed to debate the Lords amendments to the Bill. In fact, ample time has been allocated, and no one has argued to the contrary.
For almost an hour we have listened to a debate on this Bill, the Social Security (No. 2) Bill, the Finance Act 1979, the Finance Bill 1980, the Defence Estimates and the class war but no word of argument about the guillotine motion itself.
There are seven amendments from the other place, of which two are consequential. Of the remaining five amendments, three are drafting amendments, and two are substantive. To the best of my knowledge, even the two substantive amendments are not controversial. We allocated ample time for debate, and I moved the motion formally because I thought that it would be accepted formally. If there was an argument that two hours were insufficient for the debate, we could have spent the past hour debating the issue, thereby allowing three hours for debate. We needed the motion as a long-stop defence against the sort of speeches to which we have listened for the past hour. While Opposition Members pursue those tactics, we must safeguard the timing of the legislation.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)Because it is no good.
§ Mr. PrenticeWe are looking forward to the Royal Assent tomorrow of this Bill. Our objective of a date in this half of May was put to the House, and was put several times in Committee, because of the tremendous operational conseqeunces of bringing the changes into effect in time for the uprating in November.
813 The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that we were afraid of debate, but I would welcome a real debate on this issue.
§ Mr. FreesonExposure.
§ Mr. PrenticeBut we are not getting debate. With great respect to Opposition Members, there has not been a word of debate in the past 50 minutes, any more than there was in the whole dreary charade yesterday. We are getting a constant strategy from the Opposition of talking their heads off, wasting time and trying to find as many permutations as possible on the words "outrageous", "vindictive", "indefensible" and "vicious".
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettRobbery.
§ Mr. PrenticeThen they complain that the country is not listening to them. They blame the press for not reporting them. But their hon. Friends do not come to listen to them either. The present picture being given by the Parliamentary Labour Party to the country is that of half a dozen hon. Members making angry speeches to each other in a largely empty House.
§ Mr. StallardWhere are the right hon. Gentleman's supporters?
§ Mr. PrenticeMy hon. Friends have more sense than to take part in this sort of operation.
I wish to take up one or two of the points raised. The figure of 16½ per cent. was the Government's best estimate of the likely rate of inflation from November 1979 to November 1980. It was worked out in a way that has become—
§ Mr. FreesonOn that point—
§ Mr. PrenticeNo, I shall not give way at all.. I am trying to answer the point, such as it was, made by the right hon. Member for Brent, East in his offensive speech. [Interruption.] He is still being offensive, rude and unparliamentary from a sedentary position.
The normal procedure for many years has been to make the best possible estimate, and then uprate—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)It is not fair that hon. Members who are sitting down should be continually shouting. The right hon. 814 Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) knows that that is not parliamentary practice.
§ Mr. SkinnerOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is almost certainly correct, but I draw your attention to the fact that during the course of the past few minutes the Minister has been talking about the debate from the Opposition Benches. He implied that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not call us to order because we were speaking out of order. I think that it would have been your duty to explain—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is on dangerous ground when he makes those suggestions. I shall decide whether hon. Members are in order. I did not intervene.
§ Mr. PrenticeIf it needs to be said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was implying no criticism of the Chair. I was making considerable criticism of the speeches to which we have listened—although I listened to them quietly and courteously. Unfortunately, that is not a habit that applies to the Labour Party at present.
I have been trying to answer a question for the past one and a half minutes. The procedure this year is as it has always been, namely, that a calculation is made of the likely rate of inflation from November to November. Plans are then made and the regulations are brought before the House. The pension books are printed and the decision is implemented, as it has been in the past. Sometimes the figures have been correct and sometimes they have not been correct. That applied under successive Governments. There has never been a process by which, month by month, amending statements and regulations are brought before the House because of details of arithmetic.
I must put one point on the record about the present rate of inflation. The present rate judged this month, as against 12 months ago, includes the effects of the VAT increase in the 1979 Budget. That figure will no longer be included in the comparison from July onwards. That is a well-known fact, which Opposition Members constantly ignore in their attempts to create a scare on this subject.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettWill the Minister give way on this point?
§ Mr. PrenticeNo, I shall not give way.
Several Opposition Members returned over and over again to the language of the class war. I wish to say to the hon. Members for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and for Wood Green (Mr. Race) that, if we have to talk in those terms, my working-class credentials are as good as theirs and as good as those of any hon. Member in the House. Like most people in Britain in 1980, Conservative Members want to turn their backs on that antediluvian nonsense. We want to see the nation working together to solve our problems. The number one problem is inflation. The reductions in public spending, be they in the social security budget or in any other budget, are part of a strategy to fight inflation.
§ Mr. FreesonHit the poor.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe right hon. Gentleman says "Hit the poor." The poorest members of our community are the hardest-hit victims of inflation. Because they are living on lower incomes, the impact of rising prices is proportionately greater on them than upon those of us who are fortunate enough to be better off. Equally, it has an effect on their savings, the value of which is continually eroded by inflation. It also has an effect upon the support services that they may be getting from local authorities or voluntary bodies in the help that they need. Therefore, when we put the fight against inflation as our top priority, we are doing it, above all, on behalf of the pensioners, the widows, the chronic sick and others in greatest need.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)We have heard a lot of nonsense from the Minister tonight. My right hon. and
§ hon. Friends have been talking about class problems. The Government are enacting class issues by the type of Bill that is before the House.
§ The right hon. Gentleman did not address himself to the straight question: if there is a shortfall and the rate of inflation is above 16½ per cent., will the Government make it good to the pensioners? The previous Labour Government made good the shortfall. This Government have already reneged on the pensioners on the earnings factor, which is taken out of the calculation by clause 1.
§ Mr. PrenticeThe right hon. Gentleman knows that this point has been dealt with over and over again. It was dealt with several times in Committee and on Report yesterday by my right hon. Friend. The procedures this year are the same as in previous years. There never has been any statutory obligation to make good a shortfall. There has never been a pledge in advance in a situation of this kind. The shortfall has been made good in the past. A shortfall was made good by the Government in the 1979 uprating when the statutory obligation was an up-rating of 17½ per cent. and the actual uprating was effectively about 19½ per cent. We do not need lectures on this subject by Opposition Members.
§ Mr. Orme rose—
§ It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [25th February] to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them.
§ The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 58.
817| Division No. 327] | AYES | [8.12 p.m. |
| Alexander, Richard | Bright, Graham | Costain, A. P. |
| Ancram, Michael | Brinton, Tim | Critchley, Julian |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick | Dover, Denshore |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston North) | Buck, Antony | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Cadbury, Jocelyn | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) | Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Best, Keith | Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) | Forman, Nigel |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Fraser, Peter (South Angus) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Gorst, John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Clark, Sir William (Croydon South) | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
| Blackburn, John | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Greenway, Harry |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Clegg, Sir Walter | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West) | Cockeram, Eric | Grist, Ian |
| Bowden, Andrew | Colvin, Michael | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Cope, John | Hawkins, Paul |
| Hawksley, Warren | Myles, David | Stanley, John |
| Heddle, John | Needham, Richard | Stevens, Martin |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Nelson, Anthony | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Neubert, Michael | Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire) |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Newton, Tony | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Normanton, Tom | Tebbit, Norman |
| Lee, John | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) | Thompson, Donald |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Parris, Matthew | Thorne, Neil (llford South) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Patton, John (Oxford) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Loveridge, John | Pollock, Alexander | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Trotter, Neville |
| McCrindle, Robert | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Waddington, David |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Proctor, K. Harvey | Wakeham, John |
| MacGregor, John | Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Renton, Tim | Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) |
| McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) | Rhodes James, Robert | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Waller, Gary |
| Major, John | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Watson, John |
| Maude, Rt Hon Angus | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) |
| Mellor, David | Silvester, Fred | Wickenden, Keith |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Sims, Roger | Wolfson, Mark |
| Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) | Speed, Keith | |
| Moate, Roger | Speller, Tony | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) | Mr. Carol Mather and |
| Murphy, Christopher | Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) | Mr. Peter Brooke. |
| NOES | ||
| Alton, David | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Price, Christopher (Lewisham West) |
| Beith, A. J. | Haynes, Frank | Race, Reg |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Heffer, Eric S. | Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S) | Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Home Robertson, John | Silverman, Julius |
| Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) | Homewood, William | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cunningham, George (Islington S) | Hooley, Frank | Soley, Clive |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Horam, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dewar, Donald | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Dixon, Donald | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Welsh, Michael |
| Dormand, Jack | McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Winnick, David |
| Dubs, Alfred | McNally, Thomas | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Maxton, John | Young, David (Bolton East) |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | |
| George, Bruce | Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Gourlay, Harry | O'Neill, Martin | Mr. George Morton and |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Mr. James Tinn. |
| Grant, John (Islington C) | Parker, John |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Ordered,
§
That the Order of the House [25th February] be supplemented as follows:—
1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion not later than at the expiration of the period of three hours beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments.
2. If at the expiration of the period mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above the proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments have not been completed, then, for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—