Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This would be absolutely the right thing to do at this time, in order to demonstrate UK leadership. When it comes to long-standing government policy, we are a democracy and we should evolve, and policies should evolve with it. These people deserve our support in being given the right to go back to their homes. If we are to have any standing in the world, let us show that leadership today.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, this is a unique situation. These islanders were forced out of their homes not because of any objection to them, but to facilitate the development of bases desirable, perhaps, rather than necessary, in war. They have done nothing wrong and would be entitled, were they still there, at this level, to the citizenship which the Act gave them. The only reason they are denied it is that they are not now living where they would be, had they been left at home. That cannot in any way be imputed to their blame or against them in desiring to get what they would have otherwise had.

I want to understand what this long-term government policy is. Is it that people who have been damaged by activities of that kind should not be recompensed, or is it some other policy? Unless and until this extended government policy is explained, it is hard to see what sort of policy worthy of the name could be applied to making a refusal in this situation. It is difficult for those of us who are old enough to carry responsibility for what the Government did, but more difficult still to carry responsibility for what the Government are now apparently refusing to do.

If there is anything wrong with the drafting of the amendment—I am not conscious of it, but it may be pointed out—I see no reason why the Government should not extend this until Third Reading and correct any mistake. As I say, I do not see anything wrong with it, but I am always subject to being corrected and therefore I leave that open for my noble friend the Minister to deal with.

The real essence of it is that these people were put out of their homes for reasons that had nothing to do with any deficiency, damage or ill-considered action on their part. Nobody has suggested that they did anything wrong, and I find it very difficult to see why they should not get the benefit of what they would have had if they had not been wronged.

Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Baroness Verma and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, perhaps we may hear from someone on the Conservative Benches and then come back to the noble Lord.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, it is absolutely plain that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and those who supported him in the amendment moved in the debates on the Equality Act 2010—Section 202—were clearly of the view that no obligation should be placed upon any religious body to host a civil partnership if they did not wish to do so. That is absolutely plain. What is more, they were prepared to put into the amendment a statutory provision that declared that nothing in this Act would place an obligation on religious organisations to do so.

That amendment was made by the Equality Act 2010, but it was made to Section 6A of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. If you go along to the Printed Paper Office and ask for a copy of the 2004 Act, you will discover that it contains no Section 6A. That is because Section 6A was put into the Act by a regulation in 2005. That regulation was made under a provision in the Civil Partnership Act allowing statutory amendments to be made in respect of the Acts that were passed before the end of the Session in which the 2004 Act was passed. Therefore, any enactment contained in an Act passed before the end of 2004 can be amended by statutory regulation, using the affirmative procedure.

The point that arises in this case is a short one and I am not going to go into the opinions of the QCs. Noble Lords have had the great advantage of hearing another QC giving an opposite opinion—and it is not infrequent that that happens. I am going to give no opinion at all about the correctness or otherwise of the provision. They are practising QCs. They have signed their opinions, they are genuinely held and they illustrate a doubt—that is all—about the effect of the Equality Act on these regulations.

My point is that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and his colleagues put forward, which was accepted on a free vote in this House and the House of Commons, refers to nothing in this Act, but only to provisions in the 2004 Act. The opinion of these Silks is that the risk arises not from the provisions of the 2004 Act but from the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. To my mind, this issue can be completely set to rest by a simple amendment. Instead of saying “nothing in this Act shall”, the provision would say “nothing in this or any other Act shall”. The Government could do that without difficulty because I am sure we are all agreed that we mean to exclude any attack on the basis of the Equality Act.