Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.


Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has no reason to apologise for bringing this forward. It is important and he is right to point out that he had to table this on Report. He would not be able to introduce it as a new matter of principle at Third Reading. I admire him for his fortitude and sticking with us until this time. I will be brief. Because this was a late tabling, the noble Earl, with his usual courtesy, today put on my desk a full briefing and a reference to the participation of my noble friend Earl Howe in the previous Bill. I am grateful to him for that. Although I took part in Divisions on that Bill, I did not have my eye on the intricate workings of it. I think that I was involved in the domestic violence and crime Bill at the time. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with my noble friend because I was involved in the Identity Cards Bill yesterday, but I certainly undertake to do so between now and Third Reading. The noble Earl quoted the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in another guise. He repeated some words which go to the heart of the problem for the Government and, indeed, for us all:"““On the question of IND, I hope that noble Lords can agree that a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children could severely compromise our ability to maintain an effective asylum system and strong immigration control””.—[Official Report, 17/6/04; col. 996.]" It is here that the tension exists between the position argued by my noble friends Lord Howe and Lady Morris of Bolton, in her role as opposition Minister for Children, and the position of the Home Office. I am aware that in the past I have called repeatedly on the Government to make removals faster and tougher. But the other side of the argument is that one must have regard to the welfare of the children in that system, usually through no fault of their own. Moreover, if they are unaccompanied minors, special circumstances govern them, and they may have been put in that position by adults. I recognise the validity of the argument raised by the noble Earl. The problem the Government face in trying to resolve it is not one that may be achieved by Third Reading. However, I shall certainly discuss it with my noble friend to see if we can come forward with a common position.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c644 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Contracts Data protection Codes of practice Appeals Bail Asylum Detainees Applications Deportation British nationality Aircraft Employment Families Human rights Enforcement Fixed penalties Eligibility Immigration controls Immigration Undocumented migrants Human trafficking Hong Kong Legal representation Entry clearances Legal opinion Immigration officers Private sector Pilot schemes National security Protection Monitoring Passengers Registration Terrorism Treaties Training Refugees Small businesses Right of search Temporary accommodation Students Detention centres British overseas citizenship
Legislation
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk