| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: There is a complicated question about what "always" means in the case of the child who was born in this country. The Minister says that the child would not be a qualified person and that his presence would be unlawful. However, if that extends back further than one generation, perhaps none of us is lawfully here at all.
Lord Filkin: The noble Earl is renowned for always asking deeply philosophical and deeply challenging questions. I think that I shall not respond immediately but reflect on the point.
Viscount Bridgeman: We shall study carefully the Minister's reply in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 95:
- Page 8, line 29, at end insert "except in relation to a person who on the commencement of this section is, or has been at any time since he last entered the United Kingdom—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 96:
Lord Filkin: As I have previously signalled, Clause 11 does not seek to assign any meaning to statutory references to being in a place outside the United Kingdom "in breach of immigration laws". Clause 11 is concerned specifically with the meaning of the phrase in the United Kingdom "in breach of the immigration laws" where it occurs in the 1981 Act. A similar expression occurs in Section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (definition of "illegal entrant").
The construction of the phrase "for nationality purposes" is more beneficial to applicants because it does not cover every instance when a person will be here
As I indicated, Clause 11 does not seek to assign any meaning to statutory references to being in a place outside the United Kingdom in breach of immigration laws. The mechanisms for control of immigration into other countries—including the British Overseas Territories—and the circumstances in which one may be in breach of such controls, are likely to be significantly different from those operating in the UK. Except as provided by order under Section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971, the provisions of that Act and related statutes do not extend outside the UK.
I hope that that is helpful and gives the clarification which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, sought.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
National Insurance Contributions Act,
Industrial and Provident Societies Act,
(a) a qualified person within the meaning of the regulations referred to in subsection (2)(d), or
(b) a family member of a qualified person within the meaning of those regulations."
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 96 seeks to probe the Government's attempt to confine this term to applying only to the provisions specified in subsection (1) of Clause 11. I should like to ask the Minister what other reference to being in the UK in breach of the immigration laws there is, and how they are being interpreted differently from the new definition in the clause. Why will it not apply in other provisions as subsection (5)(b) seems to suggest? I beg to move.
9.56 p.m.
House adjourned at three minutes before ten o'clock.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page