My Lords, once more I thank all those who have participated in the debate. I have listened carefully to the strictures on some of the arguments that I put forward. Because they come from people whom I respect, I will of course weigh them carefully. However, I do not think that we agree about this. It seems to me that there is a world of difference between what we are saying—that the objective is that no child shall be detained and that detention is no place for a child, just as a prison is no place for a child. Sometimes an exception may be necessary, in which case all the emphasis is on establishing specific, special arrangements in that instance.
The moment that one concedes the principle about the detention of children, the doors open. One must be realistic about the pressures on the people operating on our behalf in the front line of our immigration policy. I have a great deal of sympathy with them. They are under terrific pressure. But that is where the firm intentions, the firm objectives and the firm principles should not be hedged around with people saying, ““but of course””. It should be said quite simply that if in certain specific circumstances a child needs to be detained, special arrangements must be made and a special case established. That I would certainly sympathise with. I also think that we muddle in our thoughts the difference between care and detention. We are often talking about children who are in a great deal of need of particular care.
I feel passionately about this. We have hummed and hawed and hedged on the issue of prisons, let alone detention centres, for as long as I can remember in politics. We have never grasped the nettle. The driving force should be that prison is not a place for a child. Has anyone visited an adult detention centre? It is not a place for a child. We should ensure that this is not slipped into because pressure makes it necessary to say, ““The legislators left the door ajar and the opportunity open””.
I make no apology for re-emphasising my commitment on that score. I am a little disappointed that some of those in this House whom I deeply respect do not see this point and come behind it full-heartedly. I am also a little disappointed that some children's organisations in this country are not as radical on this point as I believe that they should be.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. I said at the outset when introducing my amendments that I was very interested by the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. As I said, I will listen to her argument with great attention; I will also listen to the Minister’s reply. In the mean time, I fear that I have to show my weakness—I am a political realist—so, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
UK Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on UK Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
695 c183-4 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:21:47 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415901
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415901
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_415901