(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberI am grateful for that clarification and we will come back to the noble and learned Lord’s comments on these issues afterwards.
If one reads Clause 1(1)(c), it not only says that the person has to be ordinarily resident but that they have to have been
“so resident for at least 12 months”.
Consequently, unless being in an embassy is still seen as being resident for the previous 12 months, the point that the noble Baroness made is entirely right.
I am most grateful for that intervention, because many people who work in the embassies abroad do not live in the embassy; they live in apartments, houses or whatever in its vicinity.
The wording of the Bill prompted my probing amendment, so I ask the noble and learned Lord, in the light of this, whether he is comfortable with the vagueness of the term “ordinarily” or whether he sees merit in reconsidering this wording carefully to clarify the residency requirement to avoid death tourism and ensure that others are not discriminated against. I beg to move.