It is not a question of negating the convention. The issue is that, as we have said, we think it important to ensure within Clause 52 that the interpretation that we wish to place is in statute. The noble Lord will know that, when one wishes to be absolutely clear about a position, it is much better to put it into legislation than not to. That is a very simple and practical reason why we sought to do it. The Joint Committee may take a different view—I read its report with great interest and, obviously, we will be in discussion with it. However, we have tried to be as clear as possible about the importance of placing Article 1F(c) in Clause 52 appropriately.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c265GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:32:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292894
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292894
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_292894