No, the amendment was spoken to. It is moved only if it is in a separate place in the list. The Minister was not able to move his amendment either; he was only speaking to it.
We agree on so many things. We agree that child welfare in the immigration system must be at the forefront in all four nations—so my amendment is defective in that respect. We agree that it is important that decisions on children are not delayed. We have to look at the issue of judicial review. We agree that, whatever happens, there has to be a code of practice, and we will need to see whom the Government are consulting on that. We agree that child welfare is vital. What we do not agree on, and what we do have to resolve in our discussions during the summer, is how we arrive at putting children first. I bear in mind precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said: children are the casualty of systems. We have to stop them being the casualty of systems. They are not the ones at fault. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 July 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
693 c90GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:45:29 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407317
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407317
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_407317