§ 4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
§ (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
955§ (3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
§ (4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
§ (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.
§ (7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
§ Reasons Committee
§ 5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
§ 6.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
§ (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
§ (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—
- (a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
- (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
§ (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
§ Miscellaneous
§ 7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
§ 8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
§ (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ (3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
§ (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ 9. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.
§ The Bill has been subject to more sustained, detailed scrutiny than any similar Bill in living memory. We published a White Paper in July 1998, and earlier this year we committed the Bill to a Special Standing Committee—a procedure of the House that was introduced by the Opposition when they were in government, but which they then allowed to lie fallow and only ever used for minor, relatively non-contentious Bills.
956§ My hon. Friends who were in Parliament before the 1997 general election will recall that, in the autumn of 1995, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, moved that the Asylum and Immigration Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) should be committed to a Special Standing Committee, where it could be properly examined. For reasons best known to Conservative Members—but which I am sure they will have come to regret because of the defects in that Bill—they refused to allow the Bill to be properly scrutinised.
§ We decided not to follow the errors of the previous Government. The Bill was committed to a Special Standing Committee. There were four weeks of hearings in the Special Standing Committee, which took evidence from a wide variety of groups and spent a total of 93 hours scrutinising the Bill, taking and considering the evidence and engaged in line-by-line examination. Parliament has indeed done its work—or some Members of Parliament, I ought to say, have done their work—on the Bill, and it is a better Bill as a result of that scrutiny and the amendments that we introduced.
§ 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. StrawThe 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. HughesThat 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. StrawThe 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 957 detention powers. We can debate the merits of the hon. Gentleman's case when the matter is discussed, if the House approves the timetable motion.
§ 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. StrawOn 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. StrawThe right hon. Lady should hold her breath. I am coming on to one of the amendments that is 958 a source of profound embarrassment to her. She supported an amendment in the other place at a cost of £500 million which reverses a central part of the 1996 Act and would have sustained—
§ Miss Widdecombeindicated dissent.
§ Mr. StrawIt 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.
§ Mr. StrawLet 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. StrawI 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 Widdecombeindicated dissent.
§ Mr. StrawThe 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— 959 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 AbbottI 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. StrawI 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.
We have already made a substantial concession to those who, for reasons I fully understand, were concerned about the position of asylum seekers who were families with children. We have made it clear that we will not introduce the new support arrangements for those groups until the two plus four arrangements and targets have been met for most of those groups. That is an undertaking that I am happy to repeat, but the basis of my hon. Friend's point is wrong.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. Much of the debate so far has been on the Bill's merits. This is a timetable motion and hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman should confine their remarks to that.
§ Mr. ClappisonI take issue with what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far in such a partisan way. If the Opposition's conduct was as he described, why, in a written answer, did he thank all hon. Members who took part in the Committee, including the Opposition, for the careful way in which they had considered the Bill?
§ Mr. StrawThat does not for a second alter what I said. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me where he made proposals to strengthen the Bill? If we examine the record, the Opposition spent 14 hours trying to weaken the controls on hauliers. That is the truth, and he knows it.
§ Mr. ClappisonOne example, which the Under-Secretary of State will confirm, concerns clause 45, where we strengthened the arrangements for appeal for people with criminal convictions, for which we were explicitly thanked by the Minister.
§ Mr. StrawI wonder how long the Opposition spent on that. They spent 14 hours trying to weaken the controls on hauliers.
The extraordinary U-turns of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—[Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but they must explain how, in the space of three weeks, the Opposition here and in the other place 960 have gone from supporting amendment No. 135, which restores cash benefits to asylum seekers from whom they withdrew those cash benefits in 1996, to the milk and water amendment that they are now putting forward by way of an alternative. That shows that the right hon. Lady says one thing and does quite another. She has turned once and she intends to turn again. The Government simply will not risk any disruption of our major modernisation of the asylum system as a result of the Opposition's tactics.
There are other reasons why we need the Bill on the statute book by the end of the Session. It improves control; it ensures greater fairness; it bears down heavily on abusive asylum seekers and criminal facilitators, and it takes control of unscrupulous immigration advisers and the avaricious lawyers who often lie behind the abusive asylum seekers.
The right hon. Lady said on the "Today" programme last Friday that the Government had "unstitched" most of the 1996 Act. That is completely untrue. The Bill seeks to make the 1996 Act much more effective, in many cases, by changing it—as, for example, in respect of the white list—in ways which, so far as I understand, never once in Committee, in the House or in the other place did the Opposition speak against or, still less, vote against.
It is well known that Governments of all parties have to resort from time to time to guillotine motions. If the right hon. Lady wishes me to read out a long list of timetable motions to which she put her name or for which she voted I shall be happy to do so. When we had to introduce a timetable motion on 15 June on Report, the right hon. Lady sought to distinguish the Government's record on timetable motions from hers on the curious and eccentric ground that she had never gone in for what she described as double timetable motions; whereas, it was asserted, we had.
§ Miss WiddecombeWhat about this motion?
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the best will in the world, there are rules and Standing Orders. I know that you are listening carefully, but the Home Secretary has blathered on for a while now without addressing the motion, which is to curtail debate upon the Bill. It is distressing to have such an exchange when many of us wish to speak on the Bill itself.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerHow much time is taken up on this is a matter for the House and for the orders of the House. I have given one ruling on the content of the debate and the Home Secretary has not strayed from that in the past few moments.
§ Mr. StrawI think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would accept that, in speaking on timetable motions, it is in order to explain some of the background to them, which often involves the previous Administration's record on such motions.
This timetable motion is entirely consistent with those which we often had under the previous Administration. I can think of a number of Bills which came back from 961 the other place with a substantial number of amendments attached to them. There is adequate time to debate the key issues that were raised in the other place. I remind the right hon. Lady, and I shall return to the matter if I reply to the debate, that when she was a member of the previous Government, and before that one of their supporters, that she voted for guillotine motions time without number, whether single or double.
We would have wished to reach an agreement on the Bill's timetable with the Opposition, but given the shambles that the Opposition make of their duties, reaching such agreement was virtually impossible, and that is why I commend the motion to the House.
§ Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)I have heard some inadequate speeches in support of a guillotine motion, but that one reached an all-time low. The Home Secretary has given little reason for a guillotine motion being necessary in our discussion of the amendments before us. It is that guillotine motion and these amendments that we should be addressing, not the past history of guillotine motions or what happened during the Bill's earlier stages.
This guillotine motion is the arrogant motion of an arrogant and incompetent Government. They are, in fact, profoundly embarrassed by what they have done. If they were not, the right hon. Gentleman would have behaved in his usual courteous way. Of 369 amendments, the Government have tabled 367, so it is not the Opposition who seek to impose on the time of the House. To table so many amendments at such a late stage without a single explanatory note is odd enough, but it is even odder because we want to vote on only one amendment. Under normal circumstances, we would have said that that was totally reasonable for a five-hour debate, but the guillotine motion is so constructed that it is virtually impossible to vote on that amendment. That is the essence of my opposition to the motion.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has raised the important issue of the Government's preparedness to introduce a system of vouchers. The amendment passed by the other place would prevent the Government from introducing a system of vouchers unless they had already reached their target of six months. We softened that considerably, to spare the—
§ Miss WiddecombeI shall give way when I have finished this point.
We softened our stance considerably, specifically to spare the right hon. Gentleman embarrassment, and tabled amendment (a), which is in the first group. It will not be voted on. It asks the Government to do nothing more than come to the House when they introduce vouchers to give an account of the administrative systems that will underpin them and certify that they will be adequate. That is all it asks them to do.
§ Mr. StrawOn 26 October, at column 818 of Hansard, the right hon. Lady told the House that what is now amendment No. 135 was "supported by us". It was supported by the official Opposition in the House and in the other place. Why has she changed her view?
§ Miss WiddecombeStraightforwardly, we believed that it was necessary to call the Government to account 962 for their administrative systems. In the whole of his contribution, my noble Friend Lord Cope, who spoke from our Front Bench in the other place, gave no support to destroying any provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. We made it extremely clear that our reason for supporting an amendment that was supported by Members of all parties—including members of the right hon. Gentleman's party—was to call him to account for his systems. I believe—
§ Miss WiddecombeI shall finish my point. I believe that the amendment we have substituted for it is vastly better—in the spirit of the 1996 Act and of the Bill—and yet, under the guillotine motion, the right hon. Gentleman is not even prepared to put to the vote a suggestion that, when he introduces vouchers, he should do nothing more than come to the House to assure us that the right administrative systems are in place.
Mr. StrawThe right hon. Lady mentioned Lord Cope and said that he had not really supported the full effect of amendment No. 135, but it says clearly:
An asylum-seeker…shall be eligible for any social security benefits to which they would have been entitled if'the 1996 Act had not been in force. His name, on behalf of the official Opposition, was on that amendment. They were not Johnnies-come-lately; they supported the amendment, root and branch, to restore cash benefits to everybody. Why did they do that?
§ Miss WiddecombeWe 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 SpeakerOrder. I know that that matter has been referred to, but we cannot go into detail when we are discussing the motion.
§ Miss WiddecombeThe hon. Lady's comment was utterly erroneous anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because 963 the computer change was supposed to assist the relocation, not take place simultaneously with it. That is what was supposed to happen—but perhaps I should return to discussing the guillotine motion.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I underline that hope.
§ Miss WiddecombeThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Simon HughesSpecifically 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 WiddecombeNo. 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.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder.
§ Miss WiddecombeTherefore, the guillotine motion—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder—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 WiddecombeI feel that the need to crush the time allowed for debate and voting is to cover up the 964 embarrassment that the Government feel at their record on trying to handle asylum applications. That is why the Home Secretary did not even bother to address most of the guillotine motion. He was far too busy not giving reasons why on earth our debate should be limited and we should not be allowed to vote on the one Opposition amendment on which we have sought to vote.
§ 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 WiddecombeWe 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 WiddecombeI am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. 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 WiddecombeIndeed 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.
This is an arrogant motion which denies the Opposition the modest opportunity to vote on a single crucial amendment. It is an incompetent motion because 369 amendments have been tabled and the time allowed to debate them is simply not adequate. It reflects a much greater incompetence, as a result of which so many amendments were necessary at so late a stage—but then, in the Home Secretary's phrase, we must take that as business as usual at the Home Office.
§ 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 right hon. 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 th
965 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. ShepherdWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. GodmanNo, 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. ShepherdWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. GodmanI do not have time to do so.
The five Acts are the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984—
§ Mr. ShepherdOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the best will in the world, does the speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) not demonstrate the very purpose of the guillotine, which is to deny him the opportunity to raise detailed criticism during the debate?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am obliged to the hon. Member; he anticipates me. I must treat the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) as I did the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). The hon. Member is straying far too much into detail. I understand his original argument, but he must stick to the question of the allocation of time. He cannot go into such detail.
§ Dr. GodmanI am exceedingly grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I drifted, it was because of the intensity of my feelings about the legislation and how it will affect implementation in Scotland. The Government are sailing into dangerous waters. There must be a partnership between the two Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament has not formally debated the measures yet. In fairness to the Home Secretary, he has acknowledged the problems. 966 The Secretary of State for Scotland will have power over the designation question, yet we shall not have the chance to debate that.
If we do not have time to debate such issues, the Home Office, the Scottish Office and the Scottish Executive must think very seriously about the establishment of a concordat. If we do not, we shall play into the hands of the secessionists.
§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)The Home Secretary was as slick and professional as always, but it occurred to me that he had taken some advice from the late Winston Churchill, who would write a marginal note when devising his speeches. I believe that one of Winston Churchill's notes was, "Weak argument: shout. " The Home Secretary's presentation included a considerable amount of shouting and arm waving. We were presented with not so much an argument, but a sieve through which the words dropped.
This major Bill is complex and has been debated long. Many amendments to it were made in the other place. Today, we have the final, ultimate opportunity to consider the Bill, and the 367 amendments from the Government and the two from the combined might of the Opposition.
This is the fourth guillotine motion that we have debated in four days.
§ Mr. Simon HughesTwo days.
§ Mr. StunellMy hon. Friend reminds me that it is two days.
In yesterday's debate on the timetable motion, our attention was drawn to the Railways Act 1993 and other Bills to which many amendments have been tabled in the past. According to the figures given by Ministers yesterday, the ratio of the number of amendments coming back from the Lords to the number of clauses in this Bill is even more dramatic. Now our time is even more restricted.
I want to stay strictly in order while I draw the attention of the House to two or three specific issues that the guillotine will prevent from being discussed fully and properly. The first is Lords amendment No. 1, which introduces a new and different form of detention into United Kingdom law. A fundamentally new principle will be skated over in the debate that is to be crammed into our remaining time.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, many of the amendments covered by the guillotine motion are about the difficulties created by the backlog of asylum seekers in this country, and they are much too low down the list to be discussed properly.
The serious new proposals that are coming to the House from the other place will therefore not be discussed. They will have an impact not only on asylum seekers, but on local authorities and communities, especially in the south-east, but elsewhere as well. They will not be afforded the proper attention that the House would pay them if it were doing its duty.
Over the past two years, the House collectively has made serious efforts to improve the way in which it deals with legislation. It is a great pity that this Government, at this stage, in this Session, is throwing away much of that 967 progress by repeatedly moving guillotine motions. It is a great shame to see the benefits thrown away, and to realise what damage will be done and what potential faults and flaws will pass into law as a result of our failure to discuss the amendments properly.
The guillotine is unnecessary. We had days of slack business last week, including parliamentary days that ended early. We had a serious substantial debate, not on asylum or on new powers of detention but on—
§ Miss WiddecombeVellum.
§ Mr. StunellYes, it was on whether we should write our Acts on vellum. If arranging for votes about vellum is the best that the Government business managers can do to get the business of the House in good order and to make good legislation, it is a sad commentary both on their performance and on that of the Government.
The Liberal Democrats will oppose the guillotine. We believe that the time left should be devoted to the serious issues that have emerged from the other place, so I hope that we can proceed quickly to a vote.
§ Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)The guillotine is a serious mistake. The nature and history of the Bill make it especially unsuitable to be subject to a guillotine in the routine way to which we seem to be becoming accustomed under the present Government.
I shall briefly dispose of the Home Secretary's argument about the Opposition's past conduct towards the Bill. I am rather curious about his attitude, because at the end of last month, when it was announced that record numbers of people were seeking asylum in this country, the right hon. Gentleman was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying as saying that the figures showed the need for the Tories to stop opposing the Bill.
I was not aware that Tories had ever started opposing the Bill. The records will show that on both Second and Third Reading, this party did not oppose it. May I let the Home Secretary into a little secret? The Conservative party was about the only organisation that did not oppose the Bill. The Liberal Democrats opposed it—although they never seem to get the blame, perhaps because they pay the Home Secretary nice compliments on the Floor of the House before they vote against his Bill.
Almost every organisation that appeared before the Special Standing Committee criticised the Bill. Hardly any of them had a good word to say about it. Indeed, the procedure followed in the Special Standing Committee is another reason why the Bill should not be subject to a guillotine. The Government are in a curious position because, at first, they said that the Bill required great debate and careful consideration, and therefore needed a Special Standing Committee. I give them credit for doing so, although perhaps the Home Secretary was almost obliged to, because he had made the absence of a Special Standing Committee his principal ground for opposition to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
I heard what the Home Secretary said about the virtues of Special Standing Committees, and I hope that there will be many more of them in future—but I am not holding 968 my breath. After the Special Standing Committee finished its deliberations and the Bill came back to the Floor of the House, the Government applied a guillotine straight away, before there had been one word of debate on it, although the Bill was of great interest both inside and outside the House—not least on the Government Benches.
Then the Bill went to the House of Lords, and a huge mass of amendments, some on entirely new subjects, were made. Yet when the Bill comes back to the House of Commons, it is guillotined again. Some of the amendments require detailed debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has already referred to one of them, which was introduced by the Bishop of Southwark. According to the Home Secretary, the bishop, along with all the Cross Benchers and all the other bishops, seems to have joined the forces of Conservatism.
That amendment requires extremely careful consideration, because the Government's case has always been that no one should be subject for long to the new system that they propose to set up. They have said that people cannot be expected to live under that system for long periods. The link has rightly been made by the amendment in lieu and the amendment, and we need time to debate the matter.
That is especially true because things have moved on since the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee in March and told us, on the subject of waiting times, backlogs and decision times, that he was "on the case". What has happened since then? I am afraid that the backlog has got even bigger, having increased from 75,000 to 90,000. The number of decisions being taken is lagging hopelessly behind the number of applications from asylum seekers, so the whole system is in imminent danger of collapse.
Nobody takes the Government's contention about waiting times seriously, because the average waiting time for all applicants now, for the first time, exceeds four years. The Home Secretary tiptoed into the arguments about the nature of the system that he inherited. Indeed, if he could get back to the levels of decision making and clearance of the backlog that existed under the previous Government, that would be a wonderful achievement by the present Government's standards.
The Special Standing Committee received evidence from one organisation to the effect that when its representatives talked about the waiting times with officials, officials gave a nod and a wink and a knowing smile. Nobody, even in his own Department, takes the Home Secretary's contentions about backlogs and waiting times seriously.
The system is in danger of collapse and we need time to debate that. The Home Secretary is following the Government's course of routinely and arrogantly imposing a guillotine, but I have a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that that is partly because the system is in such an awful mess that the right hon. Gentleman simply does not want to debate it.
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)There are three reasons for opposing the guillotine, as I intend to. The first is the traditional reason advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who, unfortunately, has voted for
969 as many guillotines as I have voted against over the past 12 years. If she reflects on the number of guillotine motions tabled by the Conservative Government, she will realise that that rather undermines her case.
The second reason is one that was advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)— many hon. Members have mispronounced his constituency tonight, and I am sure that if anybody else does so, it will turn the hon. Gentleman himself into a secessionist. The Scottish part of the legislation will not be debated if the guillotine is carried and applied. That causes serious concern, although perhaps that is not reflected by the number of Scottish Members of Parliament here for the debate. None the less, there are serious concerns held in Scotland, which are worthy of debate. I can think of many times in the past 20 years or so when key aspects of Scottish legislation have not been debated here because of the impact of guillotines.
The third reason why this Bill should not be subject to a guillotine is by far the most important. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was right to say that it contains provisions that directly impinge on the powers of the Scottish Parliament—on mental health, social work, housing and the rent Acts. Those are subjects that this House decided to devolve to the Scottish Parliament. Far from imposing a guillotine to prevent debate here on those vital matters, the Home Secretary—if he had any humility or any respect for the democratic process in Scotland—would send the issues to the Scots Parliament and allow time for them to be properly and effectively considered there.
When the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised that point with the Home Secretary, he airily brushed it aside.
§ Mr. SalmondYes, the right hon. Gentleman did. He said that immigration and asylum are issues for this House, but that is not the point that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde was making. He was pointing out that legislation directly within the powers of the Scottish Parliament will be substantially amended by the Bill. It is not a question of the policy of the Westminster Government, because that legislation is under the power of the Scottish Parliament and should be debated in adequate time there.
The Home Secretary has said that he wishes for good relationships between the Scottish Parliament and this place. One way to cause the breakdown of such a relationship is to act in the arrogant and high-handed manner that he has adopted over this Bill. He should send it for due consideration to the Scots Parliament, and if that means delaying the legislation and allowing more time for thought and debate, so be it. What is the point of this House devolving power over key pieces of legislation, but retaining the ability to amend them—and doing so without adequate debate even among hon. Members here? It is high-handed, arrogant and the very opposite of the process of devolution that this Administration were pledged to support. I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on that and on the reasons why many right hon. and hon. Members will oppose the guillotine for consistent reasons.
§ Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)I hoped that even at this eleventh hour the Home Secretary would accept that the guillotine is excessive and that he should grant more time for this debate. Some of us have sat through at least two debates on the Bill but have not had the opportunity to contribute.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) for the courageous way in which he has stood up to much abuse on this issue and I hope that many of us faced with the same issue would have had the same courage. The issue does not affect only London and the south-east. I represent an area that has an ongoing problem with illegal immigrants, and with carriers who bring people into the country. The word bogus would be appropriately used for those people who advise many asylum seekers. I am sickened by the amounts of money that some people make out of innocent people who are merely trying to get their lives back together. They have come to this country to make a better life for themselves and often, more importantly, to take their families and themselves out of danger.
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not confident enough to give the House the opportunity to consider carefully amendments that are coming before us for the first time today, at what is the eleventh hour for the Bill. He makes the good point that Bills have to be amended, and nobody can deny that. The 300 amendments are not excessive—last night we tried to debate 800. He has a long way to go by those standards.
This House deserves the courtesy of being able to discuss in depth such far-reaching legislation that reflects the way in which this country treats its own and people who come here seeking a safe haven. Our reputation is at stake on the type of legislation that we are prepared to put into action, and if we are not prepared to allow sufficient time to ensure the scrutiny that the Bill deserves, we are selling the reputation of this country—not to mention this House—short. I implore the Home Secretary to allow those of us who have not had a chance to speak on the Bill to discuss the issues affecting our own areas, and—more importantly—the whole House to discuss in detail the amendments before us.
§ Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her magnificent speech. My only criticism is that I found her language too moderate. This is a rotten Government. They are the most anti-democratic Government of my lifetime. We all knew that the Home Secretary would say that the Conservatives used guillotines on Bills, but I advise him to re-read his election manifesto in which—sickeningly—he claimed that we would enter a new era with a new type of Government. Of course, what do we find? So far, we have had 11 Bills guillotined this Session, and four of them have been guillotined twice. I do not know how the Home Secretary can have the nerve to say that in five hours we can analyse 367 amendments seriously. Some Conservative Members may believe that they have been sent to the House to scrutinise the Executive. Good grief: do they not realise that the Government find it offensive for anyone to scrutinise any issue?
I understand that early-day motion 986 will be debated in tonight's Adjournment debate. I hope that the Home Secretary will wait to hear that debate, in which a former 971 Labour Minister, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), will tell the House exactly what he feels about this rotten Government.
I am very angry about the Government's cavalier attitude, as I wanted to spend some time sharing thoughts with the Home Secretary about the impact of his appalling measures on my poor constituents in Southend. The shambles that is this Bill will have a very adverse effect on genuine asylum seekers there, and on local residents.
The Government are a disgrace and the Bill is a shambles. I hope very much that those Labour Members who are not sycophantically waiting for preferment from this rotten Government will have the courage to join us in the Lobby to vote against this wicked guillotine motion.
§ Mr. StrawThe House will excuse me if I do not follow the lead of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), except to say that I suggest that he should not start exchanging statistics about numbers of guillotine motions. He was a Member of Parliament in 1988–89, a Session in which 11 Bills, rather than nine, were guillotined.
I shall deal with two points that were raised. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said that there ought to be more time in which to debate the Bill. I understand the concern expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the large number of Government amendments that have been tabled towards the end of proceedings on the Bill. That sometimes happens, under all Governments and on all sorts of Bills. However, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the total range of consultation that has been held on this Bill and the White Paper that preceded it, he will accept that it has been very extensive.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) raised the question of the relationship between this Bill and the clear duties and rights of the Scottish Parliament. I think that all parties accept that the matter at the heart of the Bill is reserved, but from 1 April 2000, the support of asylum seekers—in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom—will rest with the Secretary of State and not individual local authorities.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 175.
975| Division No. 315] | [8. 38 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) |
| Ainger, Nick | Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Alexander, Douglas | Benton, Joe |
| Allen, Graham | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Berry, Roger |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Best, Harold |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Betts, Clive |
| Ashton, Joe | Blackman, Liz |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Blizzard, Bob |
| Barnes, Harry | Blunkett, Rt Hon David |
| Barron, Kevin | Boateng, Rt Hon Paul |
| Bayley, Hugh | Borrow, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Bradley, Keith (Withington) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Godsiff, Roger |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Goggins, Paul |
| Browne, Desmond | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Burden, Richard | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Burgon, Colin | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Byers, Rt Hon Stephen | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Grogan, John |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Gunnell, John |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Caplin, Ivor | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Casale, Roger | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Caton, Martin | Hanson, David |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Chaytor, David | Heal, Mrs Sylvia |
| Clapham, Michael | Healey, John |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) |
| Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Hepburn, Stephen | |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Heppell, John |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Hesford, Stephen |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hill, Keith |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Clwyd, Ann | Hoey, Kate |
| Coaker, Vernon | Home Robertson, John |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Hood, Jimmy |
| Cohen, Harry | Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Coleman, Iain | Hope, Phil |
| Connarty, Michael | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Cooper, Yvette | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Corbett, Robin | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Corston, Jean | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| Cousins, Jim | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Cranston, Ross | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Hurst, Alan |
| Cummings, John | Hutton, John |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Illsley, Eric |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire | Jamieson, David |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jenkins, Brian |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Darvill, Keith | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Dismore, Andrew | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dobbin, Jim | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Doran, Frank | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Drew, David | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Kemp, Fraser |
| Efford, Clive | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Khabra, Piara S |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Kidney, David |
| Fisher, Mark | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Flint, Caroline | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Flynn, Paul | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Follett, Barbara | Laxton, Bob |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Lepper, David |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Leslie, Christopher |
| Fyfe, Maria | Levitt, Tom |
| Galbraith, Sam | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Gapes, Mike | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | Linton, Martin |
| Gerrard, Neil | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Lock, David | Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) |
| Love, Andrew | Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) |
| McCabe, Steve | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield) | Rooker, Jeff |
| Rowlands, Ted | |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Roy, Frank |
| Macdonald, Calum | Ruane, Chris |
| McDonnell, John | Ruddock, Joan |
| McFall, John | Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Salter, Martin |
| McIsaac, Shona | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Savidge, Malcolm |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Sawford, Phil |
| McNulty, Tony | Sedgemore, Brian |
| MacShane, Denis | Shaw, Jonathan |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Sheerman, Barry |
| McWalter, Tony | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| McWilliam, John | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| Mallaber, Judy | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | Singh, Marsha |
| Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Marshall-Andrews, Robert | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Martlew, Eric | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Meacher, Rt Hon Michael | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Meale, Alan | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Merron, Gillian | Soley, Clive |
| Milburn, Rt Hon Alan | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Miller, Andrew | Spellar, John |
| Moffatt, Laura | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Morley, Elliot | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | |
| Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Mountford, Kali | Stringer, Graham |
| Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Mudie, George | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Mullin, Chris | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Norris, Dan | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Timms, Stephen |
| Olner, Bill | Tipping, Paddy |
| O'Neill, Martin | Todd, Mark |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Touhig, Don |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Trickett, Jon |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Truswell, Paul |
| Pearson, Ian | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Pendry, Tom | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Pickthall, Colin | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Pike, Peter L | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Plaskitt, James | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Pollard, Kerry | Tynan, Bill |
| Pope, Greg | Vaz, Keith |
| Pound, Stephen | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | I Wareing, Robert N |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Watts, David |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | White, Brian |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Purchase, Ken | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce | |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Rapson, Syd | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Raynsford, Nick | Wills, Michael |
| Wilson, Brian | Wyatt, Derek |
| Winnick, David | |
| Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) | |
| Wise, Audrey | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Worthington, Tony | Mr. Jim Dowd and |
| Wray, James | Mr. David Clelland. |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Green, Damian |
| Allan, Richard | Greenway, John |
| Amess, David | Grieve, Dominic |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | Gummer, Rt Hon John |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Hammond, Philip |
| Baldry, Tony | Hancock, Mike |
| Ballard, Jackie | Harris, Dr Evan |
| Berth, Rt Hon A J | Hawkins, Nick |
| Bercow, John | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Blunt, Crispin | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Body, Sir Richard | Horam, John |
| Boswell, Tim | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) |
| Brady, Graham | Hunter, Andrew |
| Brake, Tom | Jack, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Brazier, Julian | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Breed, Colin | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Keetch, Paul |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | |
| Burnett, John | Key, Robert |
| Burns, Simon | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Burstow, Paul | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Butterfill, John | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Cable, Dr Vincent | Lansley, Andrew |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Leigh, Edward |
| Letwin, Oliver | |
| Canavan, Dennis | Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Lidington, David |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | |
| Chidgey, David | Livsey, Richard |
| Chope, Christopher | Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) |
| Clappison, James | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) | Loughton, Tim |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushdiffe) | Luff, Peter |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | |
| Collins, Tim | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Colvin, Michael | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Cormack, Sir Patrick | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Cran, James | Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert |
| Curry, Rt Hon David | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Dafis, Cynog | Madel, Sir David |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Mates, Michael |
| Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen | Maude, Rt Hon Francis |
| Duncan, Alan | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Faber, David | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Fabricant, Michael | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fallon, Michael | Norman, Archie |
| Fearn, Ronnie | O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) |
| Flight, Howard | Öpik, Lembit |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Ottaway, Richard |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Page, Richard |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Paice, James |
| Fraser, Christopher | Paterson, Owen |
| Gale, Roger | Pickles, Eric |
| Garnier, Edward | Prior, David |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Randall, John |
| Gibb, Nick | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Gill, Christopher | Rendel, David |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Robathan, Andrew |
| Gome, Donald | Robertson, Laurence |
| Gray, James | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Rowe, Andrew (Faversham) | Tredinnick, David |
| Ruffley, David | Trend, Michael |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Tyrie, Andrew |
| St Aubyn, Nick | Viggers, Peter |
| Salmond, Alex | Walter, Robert |
| Sanders, Adrian | Wardle, Charles |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Waterson, Nigel |
| Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian | Webb, Steve |
| Shepherd, Richard | Wells, Bowen |
| Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Spicer, Sir Michael | Whittingdale, John |
| Spring, Richard | Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann |
| Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John | Wilkinson, John |
| Streeter, Gary | Willetts, David |
| Stunell, Andrew | Willis, Phil |
| Swayne, Desmond | Wilshire, David |
| Swinney, John | Woodward, Shaun |
| Syms, Robert | Yeo, Tim |
| Tapsell, Sir Peter | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Mrs. Jacqui Lait and |
| Taylor, Sir Teddy | Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the Order of the House [15th June] be supplemented as follows:
§ Lords Amendments
§ 1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
§ (2). The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: No. 135, Nos. 1 to 134 and Nos. 136 to 369.
§ (3). Proceedings on Lords Amendment No. 135 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill.
§ 2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing the proceedings on Amendment No. 135 to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(3)
§ (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
§ (3) If that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on the Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case pay be) in the Amendment as amended.
§ 3.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1(1).
§ (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
§ (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
- (a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and
- (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.
§ (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
- (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
- (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.
§ (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
§ (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
§ (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
§ Subsequent stages
§ 4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
§ (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
§ (3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
§ (4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
§ (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item.
§ (7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
§ Reasons Committee
§ 5. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
§ 6.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
§ (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
§ (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—
- (a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
- (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
§ (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
§ Miscellaneous
§ 7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
977§ 8.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
§ (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ (3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
§ (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ 9. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.