| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I was not leading for our party at the beginning, but I followed the progress of the Bill and I accept the timetable that the Secretary of State lays out. However, if the Bill was so carefully presented by the Government and so carefully considered, why was a major amendment relating to the detention of asylum seekers introduced only in the House of Lords, first on Report and then withdrawn, and reintroduced on Third Reading?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since January 1983. I remember his by-election well--very cold and depressing it was, too. He has been in the House that long, and he knows well that amendments to Bills can be moved at any stage. If a major piece of legislation is going through Parliament, it is for the Government to respond to changing circumstances if we judge it aright.
It is precisely because of changing circumstances--a substantial increase in the number of asylum seekers that we and many other European countries have received--that we thought it necessary and appropriate to make the changes in the Bill that we have laid down. We have made use of the opportunity.
Mr. Hughes:
That is a valid argument, but it means that a significant change to the Bill--amendment No. 1--comes to the House tonight for the first time. It has never been debated by the House. It introduces powers of detention of people in Britain--a serious matter in any context--which the House is entitled to debate. Is not that a sufficient reason for arguing that there should be no guillotine, as that will, by definition, restrict the debate?
Mr. Straw:
The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same error as some of the noble peers in the other place, who thought that the powers to direct people under temporary admission to reside at a particular address were in respect of the detention facilities that are being established at Oakington in Cambridge. That is not the case. Those detention facilities will be run under existing
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I need hardly point out to him that immigration is a reserved matter, but may I remind him that the Bill amends five Scottish Acts of Parliament, all of which fall within the province of the Scottish Parliament? May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that Parliament may have the power to amend some aspects of the Bill after it becomes law? Will he at least consider the setting up of a concordat so that any conflicts, tensions or anomalies can be dealt with sensibly, in order to maintain a harmonious relationship between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Straw:
On the main point of principle, as long as we have a United Kingdom--a Union--it is unarguable that matters of immigration and asylum are reserved matters and not devolved. That must be beyond doubt.
Of course I accept my hon. Friend's other point--that to ensure the smooth operation of the procedures and arrangements laid down in the Bill, we should establish arrangements, procedures and concordats with the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, and with Scottish local authorities and local authorities and other bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Up to now, relations between my Department and the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, and between members of that Executive and my fellow Ministers and me, have been close, cordial and constructive, and I intend to ensure that they stay that way. I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend.
I referred earlier to the refusal by the then Government to establish a Special Standing Committee on their 1995 Bill and the errors that resulted. One was that they rejected any controls on unscrupulous immigration advisers. The second was that they removed the right to any cash benefits or other vouchers or support for those who were in-country applicants, and consequently were bound to place a huge burden on local authorities in Kent and London. That indeed happened, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is responsible for it.
Why is the guillotine needed? I am glad that Opposition Members asked that question. The guillotine is needed not least in order to put right the shambles left by the 1995 Bill and the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, for which the right hon. Lady was responsible. That is one of the key reasons why the timetable motion is needed. There are many other reasons, which I shall give the right hon. Lady in a moment, why we must get the Bill and the measure through as quickly as possible.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald):
Does not the guillotine in question refer not to a discussion of our Bill or to the earlier stages of this Bill, but to the 367 amendments that the Government have seen fit to table to a Bill that was apparently so well scrutinised? The guillotine applies to those amendments, and so far I have not heard a single reason from the right hon. Gentleman why it should apply.
Mr. Straw:
The right hon. Lady should hold her breath. I am coming on to one of the amendments that is
Miss Widdecombe
indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw:
It is no good the right hon. Lady shaking her head in that embarrassed way. We all know the truth. The measure would have sustained a continuation of the burden on the local authorities in Kent. [Interruption.] We are not in the least desperate. It is the right hon. Lady who is desperate, as is evident from her volte-face in the course of three weeks in respect of amendment No. 135.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington)
rose--
Mr. Straw:
Let me continue to explain--[Hon. Members: "Behind you.] I shall give way in a moment. First I shall explain why we need the timetable motion. We need it because of the profoundly unconstructive approach of the Opposition, which continues. In this House, despite all the opportunities that we gave them, the Opposition made no constructive suggestions for improving the Bill or tightening controls. In Committee--
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)
rose--
Mr. Straw:
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he is partly responsible for the shambles that the Opposition made of the Bill. In Committee, the only changes that the Opposition sought to make were not changes strengthening the Bill, but changes weakening the penalties on crooked hauliers and truck drivers with clandestine illegals in the back of their lorries. That is absolutely correct and the record shows it.
In the other place, with the full backing of the right hon. Lady in this House, Conservatives supported what is now amendment No. 135, which would drive a coach and horses through the new asylum support system and the tightening of controls, of which this measure is a key part. That amendment was passed only with Conservative votes.
We shall deal with the detail of the amendment when we come to that debate, but the effect of the new clause contained in amendment No. 135, which the right hon. Lady said she supported, would be to restore cash benefits to those from whom the Conservatives--the right hon. Lady--withdrew them in 1996. The result of that, as she and the people of Kent know very well, is the restoration of cash benefits for those from whom--
Miss Widdecombe
indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw:
The right hon. Lady says no, but that is exactly the effect of the amendment, as she knows. The result would be to suck in thousands more illegal and unfounded asylum seekers at a cost of at least £500 million a year.
We all know that the right hon. Lady is deeply embarrassed by that, and the question for her tonight--it is one reason why we have this timetable motion--
is whether she will stand by her statement only two weeks ago that the amendment was sensible and common sense and was supported by the Opposition.
Ms Abbott:
I do not wish to detain the House at this point, nor do I wish to interrupt my right hon. Friend's fun in scoring points off the Opposition, but amendment No. 135, to which he has just referred, places no burden, financial or otherwise, on anyone if the Government meet the time targets that the House and, repeatedly, the Committee were told that they would meet.
Mr. Straw:
I am sorry to have to say this to my hon. Friend, but she is wrong about that. If she bothers to read chapter eight of the White Paper, or what I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State have said from the Front Bench on the issue, she will see that at no stage was it said that there would be a link between the introduction of the new asylum support system in April 2000 and the achievement of the target of the two months plus four months which we said that we aimed to meet for most, although not all, applicants by April 2001.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |