Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 276, in page 29, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 254.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

This is one of those matters about which legal advice has been put to us that contradicts that given to us by the Government. We want to know which advice is correct. The Government have said that section 7(1)(a) of the 1971 Act, which is referred to under subsection (2) of the clause, is redundant. The Immigration Advisory Service says that, to the best of its knowledge, the subsection is not entirely redundant and that it is representing several people for whom the distinction between the two formulations is of particular importance to their rights. I am not sufficiently qualified to know the details of such cases, but I wanted to raise the matter with the Minister so that she can be aware that lawyers are representing individuals who are contesting whether the provision is redundant.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The Government amendment deals with a technical issue that need not detain the Committee. It is a tidying-up provision and construes section 33(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 in a sensible way.

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question, given that my legal advice was that the provision is redundant and that no one would have been protected by it. Section 7(1)(a) of the 1971 Act has been overtaken by time and anyone who had protection under that section is equally protected under section 7(1)(b). If worries remain about that advice, perhaps he and I can talk about it another time. I understand that the provision is redundant and our intention under the Bill is to repeal it. It will be repealed whether or not we accept the amendment, but in the circumstances we will not.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am sure that those who are more familiar with such cases will be aware of our proceedings and will be in touch with the Minister to explain why they believe that the provision is not redundant. We are grateful to her for tabling Government amendment No. 254, which we support because we have serious worries about the subsection as it is worded. I am pleased that the Government are to withdraw it. I shall not press the amendment to a Division now, because there is some doubt about such matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 254, in page 29, line 29, leave out subsection (5)—[Angela Eagle.]

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.