While we are considering Clause 49, I ask the noble Lord why this clause is in the Bill at all. When the UK Borders Act 2007 went through your Lordships’ House there was great discussion, in which I took part, about why Scotland was not included in the provision that enabled a designated immigration officer to arrest somebody whom they suspected. We were told that it was quite unnecessary because the police would always be present at a port in Scotland. I remember arguing that this was not the case and that the Scottish border would leak like a sieve. Can the Minister tell the Committee why the Government have changed their mind on this matter? I think it is excellent that they have done so, but I wonder what their reason is. I am sorry that I did not give the noble Lord notice of my query, but as the clause is being considered, I wonder if I might ask.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Carnegy of Lour
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 4 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c790 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:00:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534552
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534552
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534552