---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, the Minister addressed the question of appeals as if Amendment No. 46 referred to appeals against designation whereas it is, of course, related to Amendment No. 45, which provides for certification. The appeal in Amendment No. 46 deals with the appeals on the Secretary of State’s certification in Amendment No. 45. I hope that the Minister will recognise that his argument did not apply pari passu to what we are proposing under these two amendments. All that is not really the point because we are talking about whether there should be that procedure for certification in addition to any other conditions that are imposed. I must say that we have not been successful in trying to compromise, as I had hoped. The Minister did not address what I had said about families, particularly wives and children, who are left in a state of limbo indefinitely under the proposals in the Bill. The Minister knows that we have had reason to complain several times because his assurances that they had power to appeal, and that they would be considered in the normal way, have not been satisfied in practice. The four wives and children whose applications were treated in line with those of the Afghan hijackers—we are using them as examples and not as exclusive cases that we mean the decision to rest on—have not been considered properly as individual applicants but are still waiting after eight years for several cases to be considered. I am dissatisfied with the Minister’s answer and, although I accept that the drafting is not perfect, I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 137. [Amendment No. 46 not moved.] Clause 136 [Amendment of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]: