| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Does the Leader of the House recall writing the following in his book "Ayes to the Left"? It states:
- "Once a Bill is introduced it becomes almost a test of Government virility to get it through unscathed. This can produce bad legislation."
Turning to more important matters of business, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he has finally read the Procedure Committee's third report on Sessional Orders, which was printed four months ago?
It recommends that the Government take action to remove the long-standing, visually unattractive and noisy demonstration outside the main entrance to the House of Commons, which, as he knows, also has security implications. The matter has been raised with him from all parts of the House, and by Mr. Speaker. Is it not time that something was done about it, and can the Leader of the House give us a progress report?We were expecting by now draft Bills on mental health, mental incapacity and the criminal defence service. Where are they and why have we yet to have them?
On the Government's attitude to Select Committees and the civil service, does the Leader of the House agree with the following, which is also taken from his book:
- "The Executive needs to be made more accountable by enhancing the system of Select Committees, giving them . . . greater access to information"?
[That this House expresses its concern that select committees are not able to obtain from the Government the documents and witnesses necessary in order to fulfil their role of scrutinizing the Executive; notes the comments of the honourable Member for Thurrock in the debate on the Hutton Report when he said that Lord Mutton had been able to cross-examine John Scarlet in public, but the Foreign Affairs Committee was refused access to him, and that they had been refused the drafts of the September dossier but Lord Hutton published them on the worldwide web; and calls on the Leader of the House to institute a major review into the way in which Government and ministers treat select committees and the provisions of the Osmotherly Rules and the Ministerial Code.]
Is the Leader of the House aware of the privilege inquiry report on the Lord Chancellor, which was published today, and which finds the Lord Chancellor guilty of contempt of Parliament for attempting to punish a civil servant for giving evidence to a Select Committee? What is he going to do about the report's recommendation that the Government take urgent action in respect of Select Committees? Does he agree that the Government are creating something of a climate of fear among civil servants? With that in mind, does he agree, following the resignation of the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, and in the light of the huge problem that we face in managing this country's immigration system, that we need a proper, independent inquiry into what has happened? It is simply not satisfactory to ask a civil servant, even one as good as Ken Sutton, to make judgments on the actions of Ministers to whom he reports.
The Leader of the House will know of today's newspaper reports that the Prime Minister is taking personal control of the immigration service. I recognise that the Government and the Prime Minister will require a little time to formulate plans to deal with the shambles that is our immigration service, but may we have a statement in three weeks time—immediately after we return from the Easter recess—on what the Government are going to do about that mess?
Mr. Hain: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has the audacity to talk about a mess. When we took office
in 1997, we inherited from the then Home Secretary—he is now Leader of the Opposition—an absolute shambles in respect of asylum procedures. I remind the House that applications are down by 50 per cent., that we have doubled the number of removals, and that the monthly intake is at its lowest for six years. Eighty per cent. of applications get an initial decision within two months, which compares with an average of 20 months under the Leader of the Opposition when he was Home Secretary. We removed 17,000 failed asylum seekers last year—three times as many as were removed when the Leader of the Opposition was Home Secretary. The shambles that we should be talking about is the asylum shambles that we inherited.My right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes)—I am extremely sad about her recent resignation—was responsible for driving forward the very reforms that are coping with the problem. I see no need for a statement, and as for the Prime Minister's involvement, as he made clear in this morning's press conference, he is of course taking a close personal interest.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was kind enough to give my book of some 10 years ago a plug. I remind him that it was written at the height of a Conservative Government, and that it referred to all the bad legislation passed under Conservative Governments in particular. He seems unwilling now to accept the will even of the House of Lords. He and his Back-Bench colleagues are disappointed that the House of Lords has upheld the supremacy of the House of Commons, and given many millions more people the opportunity to vote through postal voting.
As Lord Carter pointed out in a letter to The Times this morning, if the House of Lords had not acted as it did, there would have been an unprecedented seventh round of ping-pong between the two Houses. He also pointed out, and it is worth quoting:
- "Since 1997, 14 Bills have been sent back to the House of Commons more than once. In the 18 years under the Conservatives three Bills were sent back more than once—one every six years under the Conservatives, one every six months under Labour."
The hon. Gentleman quite properly pressed me on Sessional Orders, and I can repeat what I have said on successive Thursdays: we will bring the matter back before the House when we are in a position to report on the action that he seeks, which the Speaker has also sought.
On draft Bills, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept—it is incontrovertible—that we have brought more such Bills to the House than was ever done before. That is a practice that I, as Leader of the House, am particularly keen on, because pre-legislative scrutiny results in better legislation. The three Bills that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will be brought forward in due course. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee has personally thanked me for giving advance notice of
when the Bills are due to reach the relevant Select Committees, so that they can prepare their work programme.I was also asked about enhancing the powers of Select Committees. In fact, the Government have enhanced those powers in a variety of ways, providing them with more resources, the Prime Minister making himself accountable to the Liaison Committee and in other respects. As for the Osmotherly rules, to which the hon. Gentleman indirectly referred, we are currently considering them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Lord Chancellor and gave a very one-sided account of the report from the Standards and Privileges Committee. Let me quote to the House—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear it—the statement made by the Lord Chancellor earlier today about the Standards and Privileges Committee report. He said:
- "I fully accept its findings and I unreservedly apologise".
The hon. Gentleman made a ludicrous suggestion about Ministers spreading fear among civil servants. Let me tell him that in every Department where I have worked I have had very good relationships with some of the finest officials in the country, and I continue to enjoy that privilege. We ask a lot of our civil servants, who help us to meet the challenges that the country faces, including those on illegal migration and asylum seeking. We are driving forward a record of economic success that is unparalleled in this country, and we are investing record amounts in public services. As I said, we ask a lot of our civil servants: far from their being in fear, they enjoy working for a Government who have a grip, who are in charge and who are driving forward those policies.
David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Over the last 40 years, legislation has been introduced to deal with racism and incitement to race hatred, but is it not time for Parliament to consider seriously how to deal with extremist groups that are totally unrepresentative of the Muslim community who daily preach hatred and violence, whether it be on the streets or in one or two mosques that they have taken over? If we were able to take such action, would it not help the vast majority of Muslims who are deeply embarrassed by those people who, as I say, are in no way representative of the law-abiding Muslim community in our country, which loathes terrorism no less than we do?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |