I strongly endorse the amendment. In doing so, I am well aware that my noble friend is an extremely compassionate person. I am certain that, as an individual, she shares many of the anxieties that have already been expressed by the noble Baroness and that will, no doubt, be expressed by other Members of the Committee. I hope that in the spirit of her characteristic compassion, she will be able to say things in response to this debate that can give us some grounds for encouragement about how the Government seek to meet the situation.
While I was still a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we examined the human rights of those within the immigration system. This issue became one on which there was a great deal of misgiving and indignation right across the party divide in the Select Committee. The noble Baroness moved the amendment extremely well, but all I can say is that in the discussions that we had at great length in that committee, the inconsistencies, the counterproductivity and the unacceptability in terms of any civilised standards, not least our obligations under existing conventions to which we as a nation signed up in good faith, made the policy untenable in the present situation. I remember that one witness, a highly qualified medical person working in the sphere of care for people in this predicament, suddenly became very indignant in the course of giving her evidence and said that as a result of this policy, we are putting people in this country at risk from infection. How can that be right? We talk about our obligations to people with a legitimate right to be in this country, and we are not fulfilling them. It is arguable that we are not fulfilling them under international obligations. This is a serious issue. I find it almost inconceivable that as a civilised nation we can behave in this muddled, insensitive way. I agree with the noble Baroness when she spells out the acute suffering that many of these people have been through, even before they reach our shores.
I also strongly endorse her point that we keep hearing about tourism for health reasons but have never seen any hard evidence to substantiate it. It all seems to be impressionistic and anecdotal. This issue is far too serious for policy to be formulated on that basis. I am one of those, and I am sure I will be to my dying day, who believe that it is disgraceful that we all, in all parts of the political life of our country, allow ourselves to be influenced and held to ransom by the tabloid press. So much of the policy in this area is really dictated by the tabloid press, as distinct from what it should be: objective, sound analysis of what the problems really are, what the needs really are and how we as a civilised nation should respond. I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness for having moved this amendment. I am sure that she will have unlimited good will from the Committee, and I am equally confident that my noble friend shares the anxieties expressed and will try to meet them in her reply.
Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 March 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c81-2GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:44:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539598
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539598
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_539598