I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
I believe that I said on Second reading—I certainly said it in Committee—that I support the idea of transitional arrangements. The court ruled on the highly skilled migrant programme. Of course we accepted that, and I personally accept that in such cases there is a reasonable expectation for application for status. That is not the case in the other categories, as we established in Committee. The precedent set in court established that there is no reasonable expectation in law. However, we understand the point that has been made.
New clause 7 attempts to reinstate much of the old clause 39. It would provide for a one-year period after commencement in which migrants may apply for indefinite leave to remain or for citizenship under the current rules. I explained in Committee why part 2 is not an appropriate context in which to deal with applications for indefinite leave to remain. I hope that hon. Members will understand why clause 39 was removed in the first place, and why it is preferable to amend clause 59. I believe that I can provide the assurances that have been sought.
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Phil Woolas
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
496 c232 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:53:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577765
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577765
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577765