I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of these two amendments. I notice that no one in any part of the Committee seemed to oppose them. I thank the Minister for what he has said. If I may attempt to summarise the reply, it was that the amendment about language is not strictly necessary. In that case, why can we not have it in the Bill? It would give an extra degree of clarity. With regard to the second amendment, on illegality and the qualifying period, it is encouraging that we are to have consideration and dialogue, but we need a little more than that.
Regarding language, we need an assurance that discretion will normally be applied so as to disregard any such restriction as is mentioned in paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, in the special case of refugees with humanitarian protection and their families due to the circumstances of their situation. With regard to the second amendment, it would be helpful to have an assurance that penalisation for illegal entry in the case of refugees would not operate to reflect the qualifying immigration status period. Would the Minister like to say anything further on those two points?
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hylton
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c533 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:42:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533028
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533028
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533028