I accept that our suggestion only partially addresses that, in that the victim will be involved in the initial process and in the decision-making process as to whether someone should be deported.
There is a good argument in favour of new clause 1. As things currently stand, without new clause 1, there would be so-called automatic deportation as a result of some serious offence. A decision then would be taken by the Home Secretary as to whether that satisfies certain exemptions, and that would then be subject to judicial review, but the victim would not even know that a judicial review had gone through. Therefore, the situation would be that someone was released from prison and was free to move anywhere in the country. However, the victim may believe, because of the flaws in the design of the system, that a deportation is occurring but the person concerned turns up on their doorstep.
Frankly, the Government have got to get their act together and start designing systems that are firm, but fair and effective. The current proposals are not effective. They put the judicial process at the end of the system, rather than at the beginning, and that process should take place at the beginning.
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
John Hemming
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 May 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c204 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:33:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395832
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395832
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_395832