My Lords, I too thank the Minister. She has obviously listened to the arguments we put forward at Second Reading and in Committee. I add my congratulations on her nomination and approval as Peer of the Year by Channel 4. I trust that that particularly generous award will be reflected by her approval of many amendments tabled by this side of the House.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I think that the amendment meets the three main concerns we have set out. First, it meets the Minister’s aim of a one-stop appeal; secondly—a point we had made again and again—it requires that there should be an in-country appeal; and, thirdly, it requires that people’s leave is preserved on the same terms and conditions until the appeal is determined.
I need to ask the Minister one simple question. Perhaps she could explain this. The need for a 10-day grace period for those who do not appeal is to preserve the status quo for the future if they were asked to leave the country. Will that remain in this Bill? Will the Minister also confirm that government amendments do not create any new powers over and above what is available in these amendments?
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dholakia
(Liberal Democrat)
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 c521-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:24:58 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298398
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298398
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_298398