Not really, in that the answer speaks for itself. I have tried to be as clear as I can, and certainly my experience as a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs is that it is always better to be as clear as possible in statute when one wishes to legislate appropriately around issues of such importance as those we are debating today. The purpose of Clause 52 is to be as clear as possible. That is what is there for; I believe that it is successful in doing that. It is not a departure from anything; there is nothing sinister underlying it. It is simply drafted to be as clear as possible. I can do no more than reiterate that to Members of the Committee, which builds on the response that the noble Lord indicated from Mr Gerrard.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c265GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:55:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292896
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292896
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292896