Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I still fail to understand why the noble Baroness, knowing that there are exceptions under the returning residents scheme, is unwilling to grant those people rights of appeal. She still did not say whether the example I gave in Committee, and repeated today, was one where the individuals concerned should be denied rights, or whether they were so denied because the Bill was not in force. There will always be a small number of people who for good reasons are not able to comply with the conditions for returning residents, and in particular will have been away from this country for more than two years generally in circumstances of great family tragedy; for example, the couple whose son was killed. I therefore argue that it is inhuman to deprive people who have already suffered intensely as a result of, say, a family bereavement and say, ““You have forfeited your right of appeal through no fault of your own””. I simply cannot understand why the noble Baroness is so resistant to that amendment. I accept it is possible to do as she says under the regulations she quoted, but I still cannot understand why, when there is the opportunity to make provision in primary legislation to retain people’s rights, that we should take away the rights in the Bill and then restore them by secondary legislation. But obviously we are not going to win this argument so, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.] Clause 7 [Deportation]: