Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I did not take part at Second Reading because I was involved in other Bills. I have a particular interest in later amendments. But, listening to the debate, it strikes me that it is quite strange that the most enormous issue about human rights, on which a committee of our House disagrees with the Government, should be discussed tucked away in the Moses Room instead of in the Chamber. We should think seriously about that; I believe in Grand Committees—they lend themselves to certain sorts of discussions of certain sorts of Bills—but I question whether this is the right place to be debating these issues, whatever one’s view of them. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made a particularly interesting point in questioning whether rights of appeal should be defined by secondary legislation. That seems a very important question, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. He gave the source of his remark, which I did not note down, but it is an interesting point that one’s whole future life, on which an appeal may hang, can be decided in Parliament by secondary legislation, which we know does not receive full discussion of all the issues.