I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because it seems to me that these clauses are far too widely drafted. For that reason, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for bringing forward these amendments.
The worst offenders are probably Clauses 53 and 54. I say that because they provide no judicial procedure for the removal of citizens. It is appalling that the Secretary of State should be enabled to be prosecutor, judge and jury in such cases. Then we come to the phrase,"““conducive to the public good””."
To my mind, that is a completely subjective criterion, given that there is no indication in the Bill of the tests that would be applied to determine it. These are very important amendments and I urge the Government to have second thoughts about them.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c272-3GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:52:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292901
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292901
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292901