Proceeding contribution from Liam Byrne (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 13 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on Immigration.
Immigration
I absolutely accept that, and I shall spell that out further in a moment. I want to make a number of changes in the light of some of the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members this evening. I would like to put on record my thanks not only to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who has discussed some of these issues with me in the past, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who have gone to some length to tell me where I have got things wrong and helped me to reshape the amendments that I shall now propose. I said at the beginning of my speech that we needed to try to balance the application of clear rules—and the elimination of subjectivity—with an element of discretion. There is more room for discretion than was suggested in the concession that was announced by my noble Friend Lord Bassam in another place. I am announcing two further reforms this evening, and I want to add one clarification. First, we will not automatically refuse applications from people applying to join their family permanently in the UK—that is to say, those applying for visas as a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner under paragraphs 281 or 295A of the immigration rules; a fiancée or proposed civil partner, as set out in paragraph 290 of the rules; a parent, grandparent or other dependent relative, as set out in paragraph 317; a person exercising rights of access to a child, as set out in paragraph 246; or a spouse, civil partner or unmarried or same-sex partner of a refugee or person with humanitarian protection, as set out in paragraphs 352A, 352AA, 352FA and 352FD. Following some of the comments made by hon. Members this evening, I will of course check to see whether we have cast the scope of those exceptions correctly, but my initial analysis is that that is where the discretion should apply. Secondly, we will not automatically refuse anyone who is under the age of 18 at the time of the breach of the immigration rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North spoke powerfully on this subject, as did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. That case has been well made. The clarification that I want to make underlines comments that I have made to the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in the past that there should be a carve-out for victims of trafficking. We will put that into effect when we have ratified the Council of Europe's convention on trafficking.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 475 c1352-3
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Immigration controls
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:26:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471818
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471818
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_471818