Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)

I also entirely support, including the word “disastrous”, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. As he said, domicile is complex. You would end up in court dealing with the issue of domicile. It really is not a good idea. Under Clause 1(1)(c), there are two requirements. One is “ordinarily resident”. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that if I was trying the case I would have no problem at all. If it says “ordinarily resident”, that is what I would accept, so long as there was the evidence to support it. I do not think we need to be caught up in the Human Rights Act in dealing with such an issue. What worry me are the two requirements, “ordinarily resident … and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration”. That seems to be a complete bar for someone who is in an embassy. It is very difficult if they are not ordinarily resident. It looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does not agree.