As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, my name is on Amendment No. 22. I am grateful for his support for that amendment, the purpose of which is to probe the scope of the meaning of ““dependant””—the person for whom appeal rights can be restored by regulations under new Section 88A(1)(b). It is unclear whether a spouse, fiancé, unmarried partner or civil partner would be regarded as a dependant. The heading in the current Immigration Rules is ““Family Members””, of which dependent relatives are a subset. I hope that that will be the case under the Bill, but I would welcome clarification of that. Amendment No. 22 includes a reference at the end to ““such other persons””; it would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe those other persons by regulations simply because new categories sometimes appear, most famously in the case of civil partners.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c71GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:30:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290273
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290273
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290273