That was a generous way of dealing with the matter. I whisper it lightly, but I seem to carry the Labour Party manifesto more often than I carry my own—but be that as it may. I certainly would not wish to read out the party’s manifesto—that would be testing my patience too far, let alone that of the Committee. Suffice it to say that when I read the commitment, if I were a normal person voting—I never use the word ““ordinary”” because that sounds rude—it would not scream at me that applications for visas for students to come here were being abolished just like that. I certainly will be interested to discuss with the noble Baroness the commitment as it is phrased.
I appreciate exactly what she says: she is making an honest offer to the Committee to try to persuade us of her point of view. However, she has heard firmly today of the reservations that exist within the Committee. No doubt we will return to them and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c68GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:31:37 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289479
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289479
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289479