Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Baroness Chakrabarti

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is great pleasure to be one of the terriers of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and a signatory to Amendment 13. I thank her for her conviction, eloquence and persistence in bringing this issue back to us again. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an opportunity to put right old wrongs, and we should not miss this opportunity yet again.

When she introduced this group, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, reminded us of her origins and, therefore, of an interest. I suppose I should declare to the House that I too am the son of an immigrant. My mother was Irish; Irish, not English, was her first language. She came here at the end of the Second World War and married my father, who was a Desert Rat and had fought at El Alamein; he also saw action at Monte Cassino and elsewhere. He was brought up in the East End of London, where he saw terrible anti-Semitism. He and his brothers enlisted in the Armed Forces because they wanted to contest the fascism represented by the Nazis in Germany—and one of them paid the ultimate price.

I say that simply to illustrate that you do not have to hate one country—Ireland, in this case—to love another. I am very proud of the fact that I have both a British and an Irish passport, as do my children and grandchildren. I hope that they, too, will grow up knowing about the traditions that they come from but being incredibly proud to be British citizens.

In the same spirit that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described her origins, I will say that, when I went to the great city of Liverpool as a student, I was pretty shocked when I went out in my second year looking for accommodation to see in tobacconists’ windows notices that advertised accommodation and said, “No blacks and no Irish need apply”. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I have this shared experience in common.

It is against that backdrop, as well as being a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside and having been involved in these issues over the years in both Houses, that I am particularly keen to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said today. Indeed, I was involved in the 1981 proceedings in the House of Commons on what became the British Nationality Act. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will recall, a genuine attempt to try to define what it meant to be British. It certainly was not part of our proceedings at that time to take away the rights of children to register because of prohibitive costs debarring them from becoming citizens. I felt so strongly about this that, when I was asked whether I would provide a witness statement about what I believed to be the considerations that we had in 1981, I provided that statement to the High Court in the action that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described to us.

I should also mention that the late Lord Sacks, Jonathan Sacks, in two great books, The Home We Build Together and The Dignity of Difference, spelt out the nature of citizenship and why we have to learn to live alongside one another and to value the idea of citizenship. During 20 years or so as director of the Liverpool John Moores University Foundation for Citizenship, I explored the issue. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today, because she was one of our lecturers as part of the Roscoe series of lectures looking at what it means to be British and how we all should fulfil our individual missions to be good citizens in our society.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has told us the High Court ruling. It is not the fault of the Government that this has gone for further definition at the Supreme Court, but why on earth did the Government not accept the decision of the High Court on this specific point about the cost of citizenship for children and leave the other issues to be decided about the general parameters, as she said? The one does not stop the other and the House should turn its attention to this.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that the £1,012 fee for a child to register as a British citizen was unlawful, because it was set without consideration of the best interests of children. That is at the heart of this amendment. Two of the judges, I might add, also saw great force in the argument that is continuing at the Supreme Court—that it may be additionally unlawful because it effectively deprives many children of their rights to British citizenship.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been very diligent in responding to questions on this issue, including a Question that I had tabled in the House on 19 October 2020. I said then that it was

“passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid”,

when he was Home Secretary,

“rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?”

In 2020, there was indeed a widespread view across the House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said:

“Putting a financial barrier on being able to access one’s rights is a clear barrier to one’s access to justice”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said:

“this is not about immigration but about children with the right to register as citizens and potentially denying them their right to register if they cannot fund more than £1,000”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, asked:

“Will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office carried out a children’s best interest assessment of the Government’s policy on fees in light of the original judgment?”


As far as I know, that question remains unanswered. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked the Government to explain why

“the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is”.

Again, this seems an unanswered question, but in the course of these proceedings we really need to have an answer. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, one of the longest-serving Members of your Lordships’ House, said from the Government Benches. She asked,

“whether the Government have assessed how many people forgo registering for British citizenship for themselves and their families as they cannot afford it? How this might contribute to their sense of belonging and well-being is important”.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked:

“Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British?”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; cols. 1273-74.]


I could go on, but I will not. The point is surely now registered with noble Lords. We have the chance between now and on Report not to turn this into yet another contested issue. There is feeling across the House that we need to put right this injustice. This is about putting right an old wrong and I hope the Government will attend to it.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I briefly pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her campaigning on this issue and on so many related issues on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other distinguished Members of the Committee on bringing this issue to the fore.

For me, the nub perhaps lies in the distinction between some comments that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—made on the previous group about British nationality being a privilege and comments made in this group repeatedly by almost every speaker about the rights of these children or the rights of this or that group.

We all acknowledge that to be British is, in a colloquial sense, always a privilege in that we are proud and fortunate to be British. Whichever route we have taken, we are all very proud and fortunate, given the other places in the world where we could be. However, in the legal sense at least, in a number of cases—not all, but including those that the Government are attempting to deal with in Part 1—citizenship is a right. The Government’s intention seems clear in some of the early clauses to rectify previous injustices and to confer rights on people who should have them. It would be a terrible shame to do this and then to make the right illusory or difficult to access on the basis of a financial bar, particularly for children.

Noble Lords have approached this in slightly different ways, and different options have been made available in this raft of amendments for the Government to look at between now and Report. I urge Ministers, with all the controversy that I fear is inevitably coming on subsequent clauses, to see what they might do in relation to the rights that they are conferring here, if not to citizenship rights and fees more generally.

Trade Bill

Debate between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Baroness Chakrabarti

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Blower and to have added my name to Amendment 18, drafted by certainly the foremost labour lawyer in your Lordships’ House, if not the country. I will try to be plain and succinct in support of Amendments 18 and 11 by logical correlation, and I need not read out my remarks; this is simple stuff.

In an ideal world, I would have loved a Bill that clipped the wings of the Executive and ensured that it entered into only trade agreements that comply with international human rights and other international obligations, but this Bill is not that. I accept that because it is very clear that its Long Title and scope are about implementing trade agreements, some of which might be of concern to me and to others on the basis of who those trade agreements are made with. Notwithstanding the assurances that this Government—and no doubt future Governments—care about the rule of law, so we cannot clip the wings of the Executive in relation to the royal prerogative on what agreements they enter into, we can say, without being creative or mischievous and without diverting by one iota from the Long Title of the Bill, that when regulations are made under its provisions, they must comply with the international rule of law, the domestic rule of law and, in particular, obligations that we have long ratified on workers’ rights, children’s rights, women’s rights, sustainable development and so on.

Put simply, if the Minister in his response will neither happily agree to Amendments 11 and 18 nor offer explicitly to come back at the next stage of the Bill with something like them, that will raise a serious question as to why not. It is not enough to say, “But of course we would never make regulations that breach our international obligations.” That can happen by accident as well as by design. Without being insensitive about this, I remind your Lordships that, in recent weeks, the Government have lost their most senior legal adviser and one of their most senior law officers over this very issue of setting a course whereby we put our international legal obligations and domestic statutes into conflict.

In summary, what is wrong with children’s rights, workers’ rights, non-discrimination at work and sustainable development goals? The Government would say—and have said—that there will be no levelling down, only levelling up. If that slogan means anything, any regulations made under the Bill when it becomes an Act must comply with our obligations. That must be on the face of the legislation to ensure that any regulations that accidentally breach our obligations will be ultra vires this Bill. It is very simple. I really look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have pleasure in speaking to Amendment 33, which enjoys support from across your Lordships’ House. It appears in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Adonis and Lord Rooker. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his remarks in opening the debate on this group of amendments.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, at a meeting this morning of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong—of which I am vice-chairman—the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, expressed his support for this amendment and Amendment 68, which we will come to in due course and which homes in specifically on trade deals with states accused of genocide. The Committee may be interested to hear a little more of what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said this morning. I quote him verbatim:

“China has over the years broken both the spirit of what it had agreed to with the WTO negotiations and in many respects made a mockery of the letter, so that you cannot invest in China in the same way that China can invest here. China is involved at the moment in predatory purchasing wherever it can.”


He went on to give instances of the imbalance, citing the example of robotics from Kuka, and of the interference and intimidation which follows when, for instance, a country speaks up for the beleaguered Uighur community or hosts the Dalai Lama. He described the Chinese Communist Party as

“a regime which regards business, as well as the state-owned enterprises, as part of the political project.”

At this stage, Amendment 33 is an attempt to open a debate on three things. First, what should be the constraints on business as usual with states which are undemocratic? Secondly, what regard do we have to our critical infrastructure? Thirdly, in making trade deals, what should be the role of Parliament? This is something on which we have focused a lot already in the opening stages of this Committee debate on the Trade Bill; what should be the role of Parliament if these first two conditions become matters of contention? I particularly agree with the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and, again, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

In tabling Amendment 33, I return to issues that I raised at Second Reading of this Bill, as well as in Committee and on Report on the telecommunications infrastructure Bill. I know that some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine, will have concerns about drawing these provisions more tightly. Between now and Report, there will be time to address that point, preferably with the help of the Government. I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has played a major part in the drafting of this amendment; I am grateful to him for doing so.

It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could say what progress has been made in bringing forward a human rights threshold—an amendment which, it was agreed, would come forward when we had our debate at the Report stage of the telecommunications infrastructure Bill and was promised for Third Reading of that now-delayed Bill. I have written about this to the Minister as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, the Minister overseeing the other Bill. It would be helpful if the Minister today could say what role the Government envisage for the Joint Committee on Human Rights in scrutinising trade deals; this might address some of the issues raised thus far.