I thought I made it absolutely clear when I said earlier that the court in that case made its decision against the legislative background at the time. Parliament is entitled to change the legislative background. We will want to make sure that we remain consistent with the refugee convention, and, as I said earlier, we believe that we are. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is simply not the case that we are somehow bound as a Parliament by what the Court of Appeal said in the case referred to by my noble friend. Therefore, with great respect, I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, where he said that a single holistic question was better and that the higher standard was objectionable. With respect, I disagree on both points.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 8 February 2022.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Nationality and Borders Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
818 c1448 Session
2021-22Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-10-30 15:14:22 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-08/22020876000107
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-08/22020876000107
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2022-02-08/22020876000107