Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 2:30 pm on 18 May 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour Conservative 2:30, 18 May 2004

My Lords, there is a point in this amendment, and I have some sympathy with it. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, said something rather important. She does not think that usually one has to be told how to assess someone's credibility. Anyone who has sat on the Bench will know what she means. If the Government are going to do this, the list of things that are to be included should be carefully looked at. Of paragraphs (a) to (e) in subsection (3), (e) is the one that is, to my mind, the weakest.

If you do not without reasonable explanation produce a passport or a document, or explain why you have destroyed it, that is a concrete matter; but,

"failure without reasonable explanation to answer a question", is not concrete at all. Even if it said "the manner in which" a person replied or failed to reply, I would be happier. We can all think of the difficulties that someone might have in answering. They might not answer just because they did not understand. This is a great weakness in this clause. I would rather like to think that the Government will look at it again.