Business of the House

HC Deb 18 May 1999 vol 331 cc873-6 3.30 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

With permission, I would like to make a short business statement. Following the events of yesterday, the business for Thursday 20 May will now be as follows: consideration of an allocation of time motion relating to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, followed by the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken at a later date.

Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

Last night, the Government panicked and ran. Their arguments on bereavement allowances were mauled by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government could take no more punishment. Will they use the time between now and Thursday to reflect on their incapacity benefit proposals? Does the right hon. Lady really believe that the time now proposed for debate is sufficient for all the important issues that remain? In particular, will the House have an opportunity to debate amendment No. 10? Are not the Government losing support in the House, their friends outside and now their nerve?

Mrs. Beckett

There was more than a reek of wishful thinking about that question. Far from panicking and running, the Government took a sensible decision to have a proper debate on issues of considerable importance in prime time in the House. The Opposition wanted to debate them in the middle of the night. We prefer to debate them in the clear light of day so that we can make it plain that our balanced package is fair and right. As for the adequacy of the time offered, we had 13 hours yesterday, much of which the Opposition chose to waste. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have twice announced to the House that one day would be provided for this business. At no point did anyone, himself included, ask for more time.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

Can the Leader of the House state for the record how much time she proposes to allow under the guillotine motion for a debate on incapacity benefit? Not only her colleagues, but the whole House will want to reflect between now and Thursday on the time that she proposes to allow for that so that we can gauge the extent to which the Government are prepared to allow free and full debate on such issues, and so that her colleagues can express their views openly.

Mrs. Beckett

It will be a matter for the House how it uses the time available. I am confident that no matter how much time the Government make available, it will not to be enough for the right hon. Gentleman, who has clearly set himself the job of being a filibusterer in this Parliament.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Do the Government intend to table a motion that will give adequate time to each major issue, including the Third Reading debate? Will they have the final vote at 7 pm or 10 pm? Do they recognise that there is concern throughout the House—I was here for much of the debate through the night—about the issues? There are not clear, partisan views, but genuine differences of opinion on both sides on the House as we represent the real concerns of our constituents. Acting like a bulldozer will do the Government and the House great discredit.

Mrs. Beckett

The Government will provide the time that we believe can be sensibly used to debate those matters. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that time was available yesterday. There is substance for genuine debate on both sides of the House. I shadowed social security for five years, during which I never filibustered a debate. I always sought to structure debates so that adequate time was available, especially for proper consideration of the most important issues. I have not much time for people who are less skilful in opposition than that.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

As the debate on incapacity benefit is now to be fixed for a convenient hour, will the right hon. Lady tell the Prime Minister that it would be a good idea if he were in his place on Thursday so as to listen to the views of his Back Benchers, rather than ducking the debate by being in Bulgaria, as he was last night?

Mrs. Beckett

That is a pathetic observation; I do not propose to dignify it with a response.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the time allocated will also allow for any statements to be made to the House? Will she tell the House whether the Home Secretary intends to make a statement on freedom of information? If he does, how can the House and the country give any credibility to what he says when the right hon. Lady cannot even tell us how much time the Government propose to allocate under the guillotine motion?

Mrs. Beckett

The Government are keeping all those issues under careful review. As I have just pointed out, we are anxious to ensure that there is good time, in prime time—in daytime—for the House to debate those issues.

Mr. Edward Gamier (Harborough)

Will the Leader of the House confirm that, had there been any filibustering, or any attempt to filibuster, last night, the occupants of the Chair would have ruled it out of order? Will she further confirm that much of the time that we spent debating the Bill last night was taken up with Government amendments, introduced late in the Bill's progress? Those matters could not have been discussed in Committee because the amendments had not been tabled at that stage. Will she ensure that, on Thursday, sufficient time is allowed under the guillotine motion for her internal opposition and the official Opposition to debate matters that cannot be encompassed by Government new clauses or Government amendments?

Mrs. Beckett

First, it is my understanding that no issues were tabled that had not been flagged up in some way—including, for example, in the Budget. Secondly, I take no strictures on these matters from the Opposition. I well remember when a Government guillotined a Bill and then introduced entirely new clauses dealing with benefits that had never been mentioned before. That was the Conservative Government whom the hon. and learned Gentleman supported.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

Having been present throughout last night's debate, I am astonished at the right hon. Lady's suggestion that filibustering went on. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out, the Government introduced three amendments at the last minute; that occupied a considerable time. Government Back Benchers spoke for extremely long periods and we heard some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The suggestion is an insult to Labour Members as well as to those on the Conservative Benches. I hope that she will withdraw it.

Mrs. Beckett

No, I will not. I understand that a total of about four hours was taken up on relatively minor, technical issues which had been discussed in Committee and were not a matter of great anxiety or contention.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Will the Secretary of State for Social Security be present for the debate on Thursday? He certainly did not attend for more than five minutes last night, despite sounding off on the "Today" programme this morning.

Mrs. Beckett

Oh dear! I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that I can well recall that, when the most enormous package of social security changes ever to come before the House was produced in 1985–86, the then Secretary of State, who is currently the shadow Home Secretary, was not present at all. When that was mentioned in debate, even his own Ministers collapsed in mirth.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Further to the inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), will the right hon. Lady reconsider her view on that subject? Given that, last night, while he was in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, the Secretary of State for Social Security spent more time outside the Chamber than inside the Chamber, does she not accept that, when the debate resumes, he should spend more time in the Chamber and less time outside it?

Mrs. Beckett

No. The duties of Ministers are many and various; they do not always require Ministers to be present for every item of debate before the House. It is a sensible division of labour to apportion matters between Ministers; that is precisely what is done by every Government.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to give further consideration to the point that I put some time earlier about the need for the House of Commons to have a role in discussing, debating and deciding motions relating to the war? The American Senate has voted several times on the matter yet, although the House of Commons has been allowed to ask questions of Ministers and to debate the matter, as today, we are totally excluded from playing any role whatever. It would appear that all the decisions on the war—relating to the bombing, to the possible use of troops and to the approach to the United Nations—are being taken personally by the Prime Minister, and to do that is to deny not only the House, but the people when we represent any say whatever in the possibility of arriving at different conclusions. The view I express is shared by senior figures on the Conservative and Liberal Benches—

Madam Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the business statement is very narrow and does not relate to the business of the House today. If the Leader of the House wants to reply, she may do so, but right hon. and hon. Members' comments and questions must relate to the business statement.

Mrs. Beckett

I shall simply say that it is self-evident that hon. Members are not in any way excluded from playing a role in these matters. My right hon. Friend's reference is to his continued desire, which I accept is shared by right hon. and hon. Members in some other parts of the House, for the House to be asked to take a decision on a substantive motion. I say again what I have said repeatedly to him and to others who have raised the matter: it has long—for generations, as I understand it—been the tradition of the House that, once British troops are engaged in conflict, the House, while offering every opportunity for hon. Members to raise their voice and to make whatever points and comments they want, does not take decisions on a substantive motion that might cast doubt on our support for our troops in the field.