---

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, that is a bit stronger than what the noble Lord said before, and I take some reassurance from that. Particularly in a case where the domestic worker is proved in a court of law to have suffered abuse, that should be conclusive, so the noble Lord should be able to say not that the discretion might be exercised there, but that it would be. It is a question of precision. I was in the middle of saying that no one who loses their job would be certain whether the Minister would even consider waiving, let alone decide to waive, the requirement. As I said initially, given the economic circumstances at present, it is increasingly difficult for anyone who is thrown out of work to find another employer, particularly in the same category. A person who comes in under a particular tier may be allowed to change employer, but will he have to seek employment within that category? If, for example, he comes in as a tier 1 professional and cannot find a job in his sphere, would he be allowed to take a much more humble job just to be certain that he does not come within the exclusions of the clause? Fundamentally, under the rules for the points-based system, a person is required to be and to continue to be in work, so I question the necessity of having such a discretion in the Bill. Would the noble Lord agree that under the points-based system adequate safeguards already exist to make sure that a person remains in work, so we should not try to gloss it in the Bill?