| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Widdecombe: We made very clear in the other place our reasons for supporting the amendment as the best vehicle available at that time for a cross-party proposal that would force the Government to take note of the concerns of both Houses about the weakness of the administrative systems that will underpin vouchers. That never precluded our trying to do the same thing in a different way when the Bill came to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand the ordinary procedures of both Houses.
Perhaps I may return to other aspects of the guillotine motion. We are being asked to pass in a few hours 367 Government amendments, which had to be tabled at this late stage because the Government have not managed to get the Bill right hitherto. They are the same Government who made a complete mess of passport arrangements over the summer--there was unopened mail at Croydon for three months. Are we seriously to believe that they are to be trusted with implementing a highly complex system of vouchers that will apply to new but not existing applicants and be subject to a system of interim arrangements for still other applicants? Are we meant to assume that a Government who cannot even run a passport system or manage a relocation down in Croydon can seriously introduce such a complex system?
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough):
Am I right that the problem with the relocation in Croydon was that the Conservative Government had ordered a computer system and not enough--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I know that that matter has been referred to, but we cannot go into detail when we are discussing the motion.
Miss Widdecombe:
The hon. Lady's comment was utterly erroneous anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I underline that hope.
Miss Widdecombe:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
Specifically on guillotined business, given that the right hon. Lady made the perfectly valid point that amendment (a) will probably not be voted on during the first debate, will she and her colleagues vote with my colleagues against the Government when they try to reverse what the Lords did last week, in order to facilitate such a debate? Will she support us in supporting the Bishop of Southwark's amendment when it is put to the vote?
Miss Widdecombe:
No. We believe that our amendment offers the best way of tackling the problem and we wish to vote for it, although under the guillotine motion the Secretary of State has made it quite impossible for us to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman is the one who has performed the U-turns. All through his period in opposition, he bitterly opposed our asylum and immigration legislation, including the 1996 Act, which he now defends as the best thing since sliced bread. He consistently opposed it, calling it a race card. He said that he would reverse it when he came into office. As soon as he did so, he sent out a number of messages. First, he said that he would not implement the so-called white list. Secondly, he said that he would not implement our measures against those who employ illegal immigrants. Thirdly, he said that those who had not had their asylum applications determined--perhaps 20,000 people--might get amnesty. Fourthly, he said that he would reverse some of our highest profile deportation decisions, and on one occasion that even included getting back someone who had already been deported. Fifthly, elsewhere in the immigration system, he said that he would remove the primary purpose rule. Combined, those messages sent out a clear signal to the rest of the world that Britain was a soft touch. By his own figures, he inherited a fall in asylum applications--[Interruption.]
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is being briefed, but it would be courteous if he listened. He inherited a 40 per cent. fall in asylum applications, according to his own figures. Since that time, asylum applications have doubled and the backlog has doubled. That is his record in office.
Miss Widdecombe:
Therefore, the guillotine motion--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order--well tried. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that we have moved well into a discussion of merits and have come too far from a debate on allocation of time.
Miss Widdecombe:
I feel that the need to crush the time allowed for debate and voting is to cover up the
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
Just for clarity, and following the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), will she say, yes or no, whether she supports the amendment that was supported by the Conservatives in the House of Lords?
Miss Widdecombe:
We are going to support our own amendment if we get half a chance under the guillotine motion to do so. It would be extraordinary if we did anything else.
Miss Widdecombe:
I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I cannot have two right hon. Members at the Dispatch Box at the same time. I do not think that the right hon. Lady has yet given way.
Miss Widdecombe:
Indeed not; every other time that I have given way to the Home Secretary, his confusion has been so painful that I have been embarrassed for him. There is not very much point in giving way to him further.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I have some concerns with the allocation of time motion, although I have no sympathy whatever with the righthon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), given the guillotines that we suffered over the years of Conservative rule.
I am worried that, because of the timetabling, we shall not reach debate on amendments Nos. 143, 144 to 154 and 163 to 169, which concern the role of local authorities. The implementation of the legislation in Scotland may cause considerable controversy and conflict between the two Parliaments. Similarly, I cannot see how we shall ever reach amendments on exclusion from social security benefits, which begin with amendment No. 172.
Whatever its merits, the Bill is based on the premise of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. Yet, in Scotland, historically we have had different arrangements from those found south of the border. I have raised the
matter with the Home Secretary before, but I know that I shall not get the chance to voice my concerns in the debate. We should be debating the amendments.
Local authority social work departments in Scotland make cash payments at income support level--not at 70 per cent. of income support--and then reclaim the costs from the Scottish Executive. There is an important point of principle for the Home Office when it seeks to implement the measures north of the border. Despite what the Home Secretary says about consultation between his officials and those of the Scottish Executive and of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, there are very serious concerns.
Immigration is a reserved matter, but much of the practical support given to asylum seekers in Scotland--I am talking about 150 people at the moment, although, in a year, we may be talking about 6,000--comes from councils. Councils' modus operandi is the locus of the Scottish Parliament, not this Parliament.
Mr. Shepherd:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Godman:
No, I simply have not time to do so.
Five Scottish Acts of Parliament that deal with devolved matters will be amended by amendments that we shall not have time to discuss. I am making a very important point. I know that Members of the Scottish Parliament and others are deeply concerned--hence my plea to the Home Secretary to consider a concordat in order to maintain a harmonious relationship between the two Parliaments. The secessionists on the Opposition Benches do not want such a relationship, but I do.
Mr. Shepherd:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |