My Lords, the Home Office is inordinately fond of discretion rather than the clear rules which would mean that applicants and other
users knew where they stood. This reminds me of the debate we had last week on comprehensive sickness insurance: although there was a welcome concession by the Minister on one aspect—family reunion—she said that no application for naturalisation had been refused on the ground of a historical lack of CSI. The Home Office was relying there on “we have never refused it”, just as it is here. Well, if you have never refused it, you do not need the discretion, and it could become a rule, as Amendment 139 specifies. That would mean that everybody was clear about their rights and did not have to gamble, sometimes paying fees, without knowing how the discretion will be used. However, the Home Office turns round and says that it has never refused anybody, which is meant to earn Brownie points. It seems to me that it is all one way: the Home Office wants to keep its discretion, keep people in the dark and maybe make them pay fees, without knowing if they will get what they are paying for.
It is late and I am quite cross—and on that note I hear what the Minister says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.