My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for going through the amendments in some detail. We will come to the government amendment, which I hope will go some way to addressing the noble Lord’s concerns. I went through this with officials earlier today. The noble Lord has picked out a number of groups for, I am sure, very particular reasons. Perhaps other groups could have been picked out. When we look at government policy on these issues, it is important that we have a consistent and clear approach. I hope that in the amendment that I will move shortly, the noble Lord will see the approach that I have tried to take.
I hesitate to pre-empt my own words, but when we consider groups such as the wives and widows of those who fought in the defence of Hong Kong, we believe that we have brought them all into the system in one way or another. We do not believe that anyone remains outside. However, I am sure that the noble Lord and others listening to or reading our debate will let me know if that is not the case. As a general point, however, I am deeply reluctant to address the question by seeking to add in different groups. In the next group of amendments the Government address a particular problem rightly indicated to us in Committee, which we have sought to solve effectively. However, I believe that it is right and proper to have the test as I have described.
The exception I make—and here I probably go off message—is that the noble Lord is right to pick me up on the question of babies. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not in his place at the moment, but I know that he has seen me squirm on a number of occasions when we consider issues involving children. I am not terribly keen on the idea of a character test and in practice it would not be applied to babies. However, in saying that I will be asked, ““That is fine for nought to one year-olds. What about two year-olds or three year-olds?”” We end up in a very difficult position.
I pointed out in a recent discussion with stakeholders that there is a difference between a one year-old and a 17½ year-old. The latter may be involved in acts that would be of concern. Perhaps it could be something to do with drugs, or an attack on a particular group of people, or even the young person might be involved with an extreme right-wing organisation. At the age of 17½, people are responsible and it is right and proper for us to think about their character in that context. Therefore I do not want to make a blanket statement to cover everyone from the age of one year to those we now consider to be adults, at the age of 18.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Immigration Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
678 c621 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:25:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298532
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298532
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298532