| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wardle: It is all very British.
Mr. O'Brien: It is probably more Canadian, because the relationship seems to come out of the way in which the European Court viewed the situation in Canada, where the Government had set up a special advocate system, which the European Court commended. That is why we felt that we should go down that route. We believe that the special advocate relationship, which protects national security and the defendant, meets our European convention obligations, and we do not expect that it would be challenged.
In relation to visa cases, the hon. Gentleman asked how we square the circle whereby someone who is denied entry because we fear it for national security reasons can appeal, and someone who has no such problem cannot appeal. He may not be aware that we made a pre-election commitment to examine that and that it is part of our overall review of the way in which immigration and asylum law operates. I confirm that we are examining creating a fast-track appeal mechanism, so that we can ensure that such injustices do not occur. I hope that that will not cause us problems with the convention, as he fears.
The hon. Gentleman raised the backlog and various other wider issues. On this late Thursday evening, I shall not venture into a wide-ranging discussion on those issues, and I am sure that he will understand why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made an excellent contribution, which was based on her wide experience of dealing with immigration law. I welcome her support, from her position of having been involved in cases and having known people who have had to deal with such issues. I thank her for her support and the strength with which she put her arguments.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam(Mr. Allan) and his party for their support for the Bill. He asked about the way in which it would deal with cases where national security implications had been rejected by the commission and the person then asked for asylum. In those circumstances, the person would be dealt with in the normal course of events as an asylum seeker. I shall look at that and write to the hon. Gentleman. On the face of it, that would seem the way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made a good contribution, and I thank him for his broad support. I am grateful to him for his kind comments about my contribution at the Immigration Advisory Service conference. I am especially grateful, because he has had a distinguished career setting up that organisation and has been deeply involved in ensuring that we protect the rights of persons who come into this country as asylum seekers or immigrants and that we do so in a reasonable and fair way.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that legal aid is not available and that we believe that the refugee legal centre and other such places will, through section 23 grants, be able to deal effectively with the cases. He suggested that they might require extra resources. Before this incarnation, I was a shadow Treasury spokesman. I learned at the feet of my right hon. Friend the current Chancellor that one does not give out money easily or wantonly. With five cases a year, I am not particularly disposed to consider applications for increases in section 23 grants. I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern about clause 5(3)(a). Perhaps we can deal with that in more detail in Committee. All I shall say is that the special advocate is there to ensure that the rights of the appellant are protected. That is what he is there for and that is what we hope he will do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our appeal amendment and what would happen in an issue involving a point of law. The principles are broadly established, and
we do not envisage any great departure from them. The hon. Gentleman raised some other detailed questions, which will be best dealt with in Committee.
This short Bill is designed to remedy deficiencies in the existing procedures for dealing with individuals who are not British citizens and who constitute a threat to our national security. As I said earlier, the number of cases will be small--we estimate about five a year. However, the cases will be important and we must get the balancing act right between determining national security and the rights of the individual. I believe that the Bill seeks to do that and I welcome the support for it from both sides of the House. I am grateful to hon. Members for dealing with the Bill so constructively and fully.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Mr. John Healey (Wentworth):
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the Government's plans for the standard spending assessment system. Although I represent part of the borough, my purpose is not special pleading for Rotherham. My purpose is to put the case for those urban authorities outside London which have been systematically short-changed by Government grant settlements under the Tories. I say "short-changed", but we are not talking about small sums.
In the last decade alone, £400 million has been taken from metropolitan local authorities and allocated to others. The previous Government rigged the system to benefit some councils at the expense of others. The winners, of course, were the usual Tory suspects--Wandsworth, Kensington and Westminster. The losers were Labour authorities such as Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield in South Yorkshire.
That led many of our authorities to set up a special interest group within the Local Government Association, known as SIGOMA. Local government has a special capacity to come up with awkward and unattractive acronyms. It stands for the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities (outside London). It is now 41 strong, because the 35 metropolitan authorities have been joined recently by six unitary authorities. A total of 138 Members of Parliament represent constituencies within those authorities, including some Opposition Members.
It is important to stress that SIGOMA operates within the LGA and should not be seen as a fracture within the newly--and rightly--unified local government. It should be seen as an acceptance of the fact that those authorities have a special interest. We are looking to explain our special interest and argue our special case, but we are not looking to win special favours. We simply want a fair system of finance for local councils, and we want to work with the Government to help devise it.
We recognise the constraints on what can be done immediately. We recognise the constraint of the public spending control total and the constraint of having been in office for only a short time. However, the early signs are good.
The decision to postpone changes to the area cost adjustment is right, and a commitment to commission research on a "specific cost" approach is a better way forward than proposals in the previous Government's 1996 review. The genuine consultations with local authorities on new options for this year's SSAs suggest that, at last, we have a national Government who want to work with, not against, local government. The root and branch review of the system promised for future years is very welcome. SIGOMA authorities and Members of Parliament look forward to playing a part in that work.
That is for the long term. In the short term, Ministers must make decisions on this year's SSAs. My aim tonight is to expose the worst anomalies in the SSA system with which we have been left by the previous Government, and to encourage my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction to give these anomalies special attention as he and his colleagues finalise their decisions in the next week
or so. We are not looking for the Government to fix our problems, because we can do that for ourselves, if we have a fair system to work within.
I have five points on my priority list for reform this year. First, we should look at the infamous "social index" for district council functions. That is the Tory index that makes Westminster the fourth most needy borough in the country. The index ranks Runnymede as 37th most deprived, and puts Windsor at 101--180 places above Rotherham, and 225 places above Barnsley.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of a Minister of the Crown incurred in consequence of the Act.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Question agreed to.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 25th June.
Question agreed to.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 25th June.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Falkland Islands) Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 25th June.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Lesotho) Order 1997 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 25th June.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
That Dawn Primarolo be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Brooke, Sir Sydney Chapman, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. David Davis, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Dennis Turner andMr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Liaison Committee.--[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
30 Oct 1997 : Column 1075
6.23 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |