Let me try again for the Minister. It is often said in court that judges were uncertain as to the intention of Parliament and it was not clear in the legislation what Parliament actually meant and therefore there was ambiguity. For the sake of avoiding any ambiguity, let us say that a suspensive claim goes to the Upper Tribunal, where the judge will determine whether that claim is right and whether an individual should be sent back to a particular country. So that the judge in the Upper Tribunal is not in danger of misreading the will of Parliament, I do not think that Parliament would want a gay individual who had failed because of the terms of the Illegal Migration Bill to be sent back to a country such as Nigeria which flogs gay men. I am asking the Minister of the Crown to say what the Government’s attitude is towards gay men in those circumstances, so that a judge in an Upper Tribunal will know what the intention of Parliament was. I hope that was clear enough for the Minister.
Illegal Migration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Coaker
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 5 June 2023.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Illegal Migration Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
830 c1231 Session
2022-23Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-07-28 14:26:57 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-06-05/2306061000004
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-06-05/2306061000004
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2023-06-05/2306061000004