Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

If only a small number of children are involved in this matter, why go to such lengths to exclude a few of them by changing the wording in the 2002 Act? The wording of the section that we are discussing excludes certain children, although the Minister did not explain this. He did not say anything about the children of these women who were British citizens by descent, which is what I understood to be the whole point of the involved nature of the amendment compared with what is in the 2006 Act. I take issue with the Minister’s assertion that this has nothing to do with our reservation to CEDAW. I have already quoted the article in CEDAW that provides that, ""State parties shall grant women equal rights with men"," with respect to the nationality of their children. The UK specifically entered a reservation to CEDAW relating to Article 9. That was that, ""the United Kingdom’s acceptance of Article 9 shall not, however, be taken to invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions which will continue in force beyond that date"." That means the date when the BNA 1981 came into force. It is clear, therefore, that there was a connection between the reservation and the provisions of Article 9, whatever the Minister may say. There may have been other reasons why there was a reservation to CEDAW, but this was certainly one of them. I do not understand why, if there was no problem in 2002 on registration, this problem has arisen now. Obviously we will not get to the bottom of that this evening. We will have to look carefully at what the Minister has said and probably return to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I have to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 90A withdrawn. Clause 41 agreed. Amendment 91 not moved.