I, too, support both the amendments for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hylton. I am concerned that employees, particularly domestic employees, whose employer may behave improperly towards them, may have considerable problems. The Minister may say that Clause 37(7) applies, but one does not know whether that is to be flexible and broad or to be inflexible and used only in exceptional circumstances. In the period in which we are now living, when people may have come in under an entitlement to stay here in a particular form of employment but in the present economic climate may lose their job, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, they are in real danger under the wording of Clause 37 of finding themselves put back to the end of the queue and having to start over again. It seems potentially unjust, and if it is not unjust because subsection (7) applies, why is it there anyway?
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Butler-Sloss
(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].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c525 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:40:05 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533006
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533006
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533006