Universal Credit Roll-out

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last time that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on this issue, he made a series of entirely unsubstantiated factual claims about housing in Gloucester. Are these further unsubstantiated claims?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order and it is an abuse of our proceedings. I strongly counsel the hon. Gentleman not to make the same foolish mistake again.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I wonder how that intervention will be seen by those people affected by these issues. Some 900,000 working-age adults will be pushed into poverty, while 900,000 children and 800,000 adults will be living in severe poverty.

Earlier, I mentioned the design issues that are affecting disabled people. This week, I heard from someone who has lost nearly £80 a week—a week—because of their transfer to universal credit after they moved house, ending their ESA claim. When UC was first launched, the Government said they wanted to

“simplify the current complex rules which have been prone to error and complex and confusing for disabled people”

and to replace

“seven different premiums with a simpler, two-tier system that focuses support on the most severely disabled people who are least able to work”.

However, subsequent social security changes, particularly the abolition of the UC limited-capability-for-work element from April 2017, have meant that, instead of a net gain, it is likely that there will be a net reduction of support for people with health conditions and disabilities.

Under this Government, we are seeing unprecedented cuts in support to disabled people, with the consequence that more and more disabled people are living in poverty. The number currently stands at more than 4.2 million; this cannot go on. This is exactly what the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities said is causing a “human catastrophe”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I give way to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) has just been promoted. The Secretary of State needs to gesticulate whom he means with greater clarity.

[Mrs Main]

I thank the Secretary of State for that promotion. I look forward to receiving it in the post.

Is the Secretary of State any more aware than I am of the topic of this debate? Yesterday, the Opposition wanted to fix universal credit. Today, the word “fix” has been dropped. It seems that the Opposition want to pause but not fix. Has he any greater awareness of this matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

On this side of the Chamber, we live in the real world of our constituents. People suffering from motor neurone disease came to see us in Westminster yesterday to say that on top of the agony of their disease, they faced the indignity of fighting for their full entitlement under PIP. Today a landlord came to see me in my office, saying that he will never again let to tenants on universal credit, and a single mum told me that she is desperate because, with roll-out just before Christmas, she and thousands of others face a bleak Christmas. Does the Secretary of State begin to understand—

[Mr Speaker]

Order! I am sorry to have to shout, but the hon. Gentleman, though he speaks with great force and eloquence, took too long. We must have shorter interventions, as it is not fair on others.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me turn to the important point of claimant commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36.)

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a major defeat for the Government on their flagship social security programme. Conservative Whips and the Prime Minister have spent the day strong-arming Conservative MPs to vote against a pause in the roll-out of universal credit, while the Secretary of State has retreated on various aspects of his universal credit policy in a panicked attempt to appease Tory MPs who know that the policy is not fit for purpose.

Yet again, the Prime Minister and the Tories cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is in office but not in power. Mr Speaker, have you had an indication from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State that they intend to come to the House and clarify how they will ensure that the Government implement the clearly expressed will of the House to pause the roll-out of universal credit?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer is that I have received no indication as yet that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on that matter, although it is of course open to colleagues to request such.

I should say the following in these relatively unusual—not unprecedented, but relatively unusual—circumstances. There is nothing disorderly about a recorded vote of the House in which there are no Members recorded as voting no. Members who shout “No” when the question is first put must not vote aye, but they are not and cannot be obliged to vote no. As Standing Order No. 39 states:

“A Member is not obliged to vote.”

A Division requires two Tellers on either side and that was the case.

I should add as follows. A resolution of the House of Commons is just that: an expression of the view of the nation’s elected representatives in the House of Commons. This is important and Members need to hear this part of what I have to say. Constitutionally, from my own experience but based also on procedural advice, and as clearly as what I said a few moments ago, the House cannot direct Ministers. It is for Ministers in the Government to decide how to respond to the clearly expressed view of the House. I feel confident that they will do so, bearing in mind the mood of the House expressed in the urgent debate, which I allowed just two weeks ago, on the need for Government respect for the proceedings of the House.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a slight correction, of course: the Government did not vote against the motion and so could not possibly have lost it. It might be that the Labour deputy Chief Whip will have to be sacked for rebelling against the Labour party line. On a serious point, Sir, would you agree that it would be helpful if there was a convention in the House that where a substantive motion is passed the Government should come to the House, within a reasonable time, and make a statement about what they intend to do about it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is twofold. First, I do not cavil—I have known him a long time—but I have not been corrected. I have been corrected many times in my life—I make no complaint about that—but I require no correction on this occasion. [Interruption.] Oh, there is a suggestion that somebody else was being corrected. Well, I will not get into that nether region.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up; I would not want to waste him.

What I said was correct. This was the expressed will of the House. If people choose not to take part in a Division, they cannot suddenly say, “Well, we didn’t lose”. We are elected to come to this place to debate and decide what our position is on motions. If people choose not to vote, that is perfectly in order, as I have explained, but the motion was carried. That is not an expression of opinion on my part. It is not an indication of bias, a display of partisanship, a siding with one party or another; it is a statement of fact. The motion was passed. End of subject.

Secondly, I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has been utterly consistent with what he said the other day. I think it highly desirable that the Government, in the light of the result, should come to the House and show respect for the institution by indicating what they intend to do. It may be that a Minister would wish to do that or the Leader of the House. As we all know in this place, the Leader of the House is not merely the Government’s representative in the House; the Leader of the House has to be the House’s representative in the Government. What I have said is extremely clear, and we will await events patiently, as always.

[Pete Wishart]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government’s behaviour is bringing the working arrangements of the House into disrepute. A Minister is not going to come to the House to explain why they did not turn up to vote, but what can you do to help the House compel the Leader of the House to come to the House and make a statement about the Government’s behaviour and refusal to participate in the democratic arrangements of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I must be absolutely explicit in response to the hon. Gentleman, for his benefit and that of the House, and the short answer is that it is not within the powers of the Speaker to compel a Minister, including the Leader of the House, to do anything in this situation. We very much depend in this House, this institution, this great place, on conventions, precedent and a sense of respect for the will of the House. He is a very experienced Member of this place and will know that mechanisms are available to him and others, on both sides of the House, to try to secure a governmental response, if they wish. If they do, they will certainly not find the Speaker an obstacle to their endeavours.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not quite understand something. For 34 years, I have been trooping through hundreds of Divisions on Wednesdays under successive Labour and Conservative Governments. When I was required to be here for those Divisions, I was under the impression that it served some purpose. What worries me is that surely there is some precedent here. You mentioned precedent a moment ago, Mr Speaker. This is not, and should not be, a university debating society. What is the point of the House of Commons if we just express opinions for the sake of it? Surely, when we vote, it should have some effect. I hope that you will use your influence, through the usual channels, to ensure that the House of Commons is at the centre of our national life.

[Mr Speaker]

I absolutely respect what the hon. Gentleman has said. There have been occasions on which, for example, Opposition day debates have expressed a view different from that of the Government. I think there was a case some years ago, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in opposition, in which that party was successful in a motion that it brought to the House, and the policy of the Government changed thereafter; but it is not for me to say that that has to happen. I have tried to tread a delicate path on this matter, and to explain factually to the House what the result of the vote does signify, but equally, in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), what it does not automatically signify.

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for me to seek to compel. What I will say to occupants of the Treasury Bench is that it is blindingly obvious that this is an unusual situation about which there is strong opinion, and I think it would be respectful to the House if a Minister, sooner rather than later, were to come to the House—perhaps after due consideration and collegiate exchange with other members of the Government—to give an indication of the Government’s thinking.

This institution is bigger than any one party, and, frankly, it is bigger than any one Government. This place, and what we do here, matter very much. I know that the Secretary of State will share that view, and will want to reflect on what colleagues have said.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I will take a couple more points of order. Mr Christian Matheson.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a couple of weeks ago, in the House, the Government changed the rules of the House in respect of the composition of Standing Committees to give themselves an automatic majority. They justified that on the basis that they had a majority in the House, and that that should therefore be reflected in Standing Committees. Since it is now abundantly clear that they no longer believe they have a majority—given that they are running scared of every vote that we put to them—should we not be revisiting the decision made only a couple of weeks ago about the composition of Standing Committees?

[Mr Speaker]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I hope he will not take offence, but if he does, it is just too bad—[Laughter]—when I say that he has expressed, with his characteristic force and insistence, and no little eloquence, his opinion; however, there is not an automatic link between the two phenomena that he has described. There could be such a link, but it is not automatic. The hon. Gentleman’s mind has raced ahead.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving the right hon. Gentleman until last, because he is so senior.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It deals with the matter of precedent. I am sure you will agree that, historically, there have been plenty of occasions on which the Opposition have been so fed up with the Government that they have boycotted Parliament for some time and not turned up for any Divisions, but it is only this Government who have decided that they are so fed up with losing to the Opposition that they are going to boycott votes in the House of Commons. If we were to craft a motion cleverly, which, for instance, docked a Minister’s pay by, say, £10,000, that would have an effect, would it not?

[Mr Speaker]

What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I think it better not to entertain hypothetical questions, or, at any rate, not at this time. Secondly—and I say this with some feeling to the hon. Gentleman, who should know from his own experience the truth of what I say—cleverness can be effective in this place, but it is not invariably so.

[Chris Bryant]

As you know! [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

I was rather minded to say that I would not know, but the hon. Gentleman would. I think we will leave it there for now.

There is also a difference between a motion that binds and a motion that does not. Whether the hon. Gentleman thinks the motion is clever or not, some motions instruct, and can therefore secure an outcome, and others do not. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware not only of the distinction abstractly, but of what types of motion instruct and what types do not. These matters can be consulted on among colleagues and with professional advisers, but I think I should leave what I have said for now.

[Mr Howarth]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been admirably clear about the obligation that rests with the Government to address the situation they now find themselves in. Even if that is not cutting a Minister’s salary for not responding, should there not be in our Standing Orders some provision whereby there can be a penalty for simply refusing to respond to the will of this House?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the House to look at its Standing Orders, and potentially to revise them, at any time; that is not for the Chair. I completely understand the sentiment the right hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I leave that to colleagues. I have tried to be absolutely fair on this matter: this motion does matter; it is important; it was passed. As a matter of fact, however, it is not binding. That is the situation.

I simply say to those who are concerned about a statement that there may be a statement tomorrow, and there are means by which people who want to procure a statement can seek to do so if none is proffered. That is just a statement of the facts. The Chair is not seeking to deliver any change tonight or make any commitment. It is not for me to do that. It is for sensible parliamentarians to talk to each other, to reflect on what has happened, to have a regard to the reputation of the institution, and to act accordingly. People are perfectly capable of understanding the significance of what I have said and of deciding, individually or collectively, how to respond, possibly as early as tomorrow.