UK Parliament / Open data

Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Judd (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bills on Children and Young Persons Bill [HL].
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for a moment or two at the beginning of this debate. I welcome the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton. I have discovered in conversations with her that there can be no question of her posturing or playing politics with this sensitive issue. I know that she is deeply committed to what lies behind the amendment and I congratulate her. It is in keeping with something that I believe can be a legitimate feather in the cap of the Opposition: the part that they played in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the pride that they took in their part in it. There is an element of consistency there that the House should recognise. I have one point to make. If we are serious about our commitment to that convention, as I hope we all are, we have an unavoidable obligation to promote the well-being of, not just safeguard, the child. I simply cannot think of a more difficult experience for a child than the circumstances in which they meet the authorities responsible for immigration. We can argue about how they come to be there and the legitimacy of their being there, but it is a time of extreme vulnerability for the child when all our imagination, determination and commitment to the convention should come into play. This is a matter of not leaving it to other agencies but ensuring that the priority and the resources are there for those in the front line of immigration policy to have our obligations under the convention high in their responsibilities. It is no good simply saying that we are committed to the convention and then, when there is a really traumatic moment in the life of the child, saying, ““Oh, well, someone else is responsible at this particular time for promoting their interest; all we’re concerned about here is a minimal function of safeguarding the interests of the child””. That is the time when it really matters. I suspect that the noble Baroness might have been counselled that she ought to be a bit careful with this amendment because it had quite challenging implications for immigration policy. I would like to place on record my admiration for the fact that, if she did come under such pressure, she withstood it and said, ““No, I want to stand by the promotion of the interests of the child at this critical time””. If she has done that, it behoves us all to respond positively to what she has said.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

700 c34-5 

Session

2007-08

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top