HC Deb 12 April 1988 vol 131 cc19-20 3.31 pm
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The Prime Minister has answered no questions at all.

Mr. Cook

I beg to ask leave—

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East)

Go on; get off to your banquet.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) does not resume his seat, I shall have to take serious action.

Mr. Cook

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am listening to an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Cook

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the impact of the changes in the social security system.

I shall submit three brief reasons, all relevant to the considerations set out in Standing Orders, why I ask leave to move the Adjournment.

First, it is now abundantly clear that the Government's estimate that only 12 per cent. of claimants will be worse off is difficult to reconcile with reality. The Government's own social security advisory committee last week put the losers at 43 per cent. The House must have an early opportunity to debate ministerial statements that would appear to be misleading and are not supported by their own advisers.

Secondly, this is the first occasion on which the House has met since the changes were implemented and since individual claimants learnt of their predicament—individual claimants such as the constituent I saw at the weekend, on invalidity benefit of £72 a week, who lost £12 a week in housing benefit. Every Labour Member has met such constituents during the recess. Indeed, I read that a survey of 100 Conservative Members revealed that two-thirds are seriously concerned by the changes. It is only right that the House should give those Members an early opportunity to express their concern in Parliament.

Thirdly, the matter is urgent; it is desperately urgent for the victims of the changes. A week's delay in debating their plight is another week in which they have to shift and to survive on sharply reduced benefits.

This is an important matter. The changes affect the living standards of 7 million claimants and their families. The increasingly harsh policy has troubled the conscience not just of bishops but of the nation. This House would be failing in its duty if it did not secure an early opportunity to challenge Ministers to say why they are making the poor poorer when they have the money to make the rich richer.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purposes of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the impact of the changes in the social security system".

I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 20. Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given, the motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Not, I hope, to challenge what I have just said.

Mr. Miller

I am not in the habit of challenging the rulings of the Chair. I have never done so. I seek guidance as to whether I can similarly jog backwards two years to legislation which has subsequently been debated in detail on a number of occasions. May I hope to have a similarly favourable reply?

Mr. Speaker

Every application is considered on its merits.