Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015
Lord Avebury Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I suspect that the House will soon want to vote on this. I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for presenting their Motions so powerfully. Listening to the debates, I thought back to my father. For some time he was the Father of your Lordships’ House: he took his seat in 1932 and died in 1977. He was an aristocrat from a land-owning family, and he felt it important to go to live at Toynbee Hall in the East End, in order to understand how people from a different background lived. In his late eighties, he continued to take public transport because he was concerned about losing touch with how most people live. I have to say with the greatest respect to the Government that considering yesterday’s Motions and today’s, I am concerned that perhaps they may be losing touch with what goes on with some of the families in our country. The families we are talking about, the ones which would be most touched today and yesterday, are lone parent families. Some 90% of them will be mothers bringing up children on their own without the support of a father. They will be most penalised financially by what we are looking at today.
I have not had the opportunity to thank the Government since the publication of the latest employment figures. I say to the Government and to the members of the coalition Government that it is an extraordinary and very welcome achievement to have the lowest rate of unemployment since 2008. Employment brings important economic benefits to us all but it also brings a purpose and a way of breaking through isolation. I know how important this is, as a carer of a man who is mentally ill and has been unemployed for a long time. Sadly, the families that we are talking about today are not permitted to work. I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time, but I would like to say a little bit about the importance of isolation. Several noble Lords have referred to the finding, by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, that coming into contact with the UK’s provisions for asylum seekers has an adverse effect on the mental health of families. Some time ago, I listened to a psychiatrist talking about post-natal depression. He said to me afterwards that one can withstand almost any adverse experience as long as one does not have to do it on one’s own. I hope noble Lords will consider that we are denying these families the opportunity to work. They can do voluntary work but they need to pay for transport to do that job. In so many ways, we are working to isolate these families.
I return to my original point. I know that the noble Lord has a large brief, but if he has not yet had the opportunity to go to visit some of these families where they live, I encourage him, or his ministerial colleagues, to do so. Then, the next time we have a debate like this, he can say that he has spoken with these families; that he understands their concerns because he has heard them himself; and he can assure the House that every precaution has been taken, when bringing forward regulations, to think about their needs. Having read the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am concerned that there seems to have been a careless approach to this very important matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but from what I have heard so far I am moved to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Avebury (LD)
I wish to ask the Minister two very brief questions. First, the comment has been made, but not in this debate, about the length of time that people remain on Section 95 support. In 2013, Mark Harper, who was then the Minister in charge of immigration, gave a series of figures, including an average length of time that people are on this destitution support of 525 days. That is part of the most iniquitous feature of this system—that not only do we keep people on the very bottom of the economic heap, but we leave them there indefinitely with no limit on the time that people can remain on this destitution support.
The other question I want to ask the Minister is whether the Government intend to publish a response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has been quoted many times during this debate, and the criticism it made of failing to give full details of the number of families who are on this level of support and what is included in it. Can we have answers to those questions in the Minister’s wind-up speech?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
I promise to be brief as much has been said already, but I cannot help saying that the Government have shown a generous face to the public on Syrian refugees under the UN’s Gateway scheme, responded properly to public pressure then, and may do more. However, at the same time, they are prepared to let down and make more destitute refused asylum seekers who may be unable to return home. There is a clear moral principle here and this Minister will recognise that. These are people who have already suffered greater hardship than the rest of the community and yet they are in effect being punished for remaining in this country, as the noble Lord has just said.
Under Sections 95 and 4(2) of the 1999 Act, this category who have been unable to convince the Home Office of their case are already regarded as destitute. That is why they come under these sections. If the House of Commons Library is correct, and 3,600 out of some 4,900 individuals on Section 4(2) support have been living on it for more than 12 months, there must be a very good reason why they cannot return to their home country.
Keeping asylum seekers at destitution level must have two objectives, which have not been mentioned. The first is to act as a deterrent to people who are determined to avoid removal. The second is to show the sceptical public that no cushions are being supplied to asylum seekers. On the deterrent argument, to expect that by reducing their income by as much as 30% in some cases they will immediately be able to take off to another possibly unsafe country is completely to ignore their present insecure situation. As to cushions, it is unlikely that the general public will ever be aware of people with no future, living precariously, possibly in hiding and in temporary accommodation. But apart from that, the evidence seems overwhelming. I am grateful to the Still Human Still Here campaign for its helpful summary. I was startled, as others were, by Refugee Action’s finding in 2013 that 90% of interviewees on Section 95 support could not afford sufficient or adequate food or clothing. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, mentioned this.
It appears that the Home Office is coming down heaviest on footwear, clothing and communications. Leaving mobile phones aside, has anyone living on £5 a day on an Azure card ever tried to buy a pair of shoes or a sweater? Of course, they will not be able to afford anything but charity handouts, if they can get them, as my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames said. Should the Government be counting on them finding handouts and, still worse, should they be taking these into account in their calculations? Has any research been carried out on handouts and whether they come into official calculations? The Home Affairs Committee took a dim view of this in 2013, and then came the very serious High Court judgment that the Government had got it wrong and needed to rethink their whole case. That is why we are discussing the new ONS figures.
I will not repeat what has been said about the UN convention. I accept the principle that migrants or overstayers who fail the asylum seeker test need to be returned to their country of origin. I have been involved with this subject in Portsmouth and agree with the Government’s policy. This becomes even more important with the new Syrian arrivals, when there will be renewed pressure on resources. But that does not mean that you penalise a whole section of society who may be forced to live below the standard of the population as a whole.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their Motions and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It has been a very difficult debate to listen to from the Front Bench. There is no mistake about that. I preface my remarks by saying that I am acutely aware that we are talking here about some of the most vulnerable people—not just in the country but on the planet—who have sought refuge in this country. I have no qualms about that at all. Nor do I for one minute suggest that the sums that we are talking about are anything other than the amounts required to meet the essential living needs of individuals. That reflects a level which is barely above the level of destitution as we would define it. I preface my comments with those remarks.
There have been a number of incredibly thoughtful and powerful speeches, and I have here a large number of responses from my officials. Time may not permit me to move all the way through them, but I do want to address some elements. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and several other noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about the people who come to this country seeking asylum, their background, where they come from—Eritrea and other different places—and the journeys that they have been on to reach here. What greets them on arrival here with their desire to claim asylum?
First, as has been mentioned, they will be given somewhere furnished to live. It will be equipped with bed linen, towels and kitchen utensils. It will be covered for repairs and will have its utility bills—electricity, gas and water—and council tax all paid for. They will get that £36.95 to cover food, clothing and toiletries. They will get additional help, if they are pregnant, of £3 per week. If they have a baby under the age of one, they will get £5 per week; for a child aged one to three, £3 per week. They will get a one-off £300 maternity payment if the baby is due within eight weeks. They will get access to the National Health Service, free prescriptions for medicine, free dental care, free eye tests and help with paying for glasses. They will get access to the education system and free school meals.
I want to put that down because it may all seem obvious, but I want to put it on record that I understand—I totally get it—that this country has a proud record of offering a helping hand to those people who come here seeking asylum, and I want to make it absolutely clear that there is a level of support which is there and is to provide them with safety and a base from which they can begin their appeal. They will also have access to Migrant Help, a fund of about £400 million per year which goes towards providing asylum support in this country. Migrant Help will get alongside people and advise them of their needs. Providing they pass the merits test, they will also have access to legal aid and legal advice to help them to prepare their case and work their way through what must be a daunting process. Also, as the noble Baroness mentioned, they will have access to language training.
This is all seen in the context of what should be a temporary situation. For far too long, it was the case that people were in a sense parked on these benefits and lived in great hardship for a long period of time. One of the things which we want to make absolutely clear is that we want speedy decisions. In fact, we were challenged in court over this very issue of wanting quick decisions, because we think that quick decisions are in the best interest of the individuals concerned, and where they are granted leave to remain in this country and granted asylum, they have access to the full range of benefits and they will be able to work—a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The speed of decision-making is absolutely critical.
Then we come to the point about the absolute cash sums. I preface this by stating that I know that these would not be called generous. They were linked to the system of income support that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about. That situation changed in 2008 and we moved on to the system that we have now. That was the subject of a challenge by Refugee Action referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. This really went to town in challenging the methodology that we were using. Far from disregarding this and not being mindful of it, we set about undertaking a revision of the methodology. Everything that we have set out here is driven by that new methodology, looking at the things that needed to be taken into account and trying to put a price on them. On the basis of undertaking that revised methodology, not in contravention of but in compliance with that legal judgment, we have arrived at a position, with data from ONS and other sources, that because of economies of scale, the argument for providing an additional premium for children is no longer there. They can meet essential living needs through the economies of scale of a family living together.
I know that we are talking about vulnerable people. I know that we are talking about people who are hovering precariously above the line of destitution, with all sorts of pressures on their mind. However, those of us who have had families would all recognise that, if you are cooking a meal for four, it is less expensive per unit than if you are providing food for one. I do not want to go too far down that road, other than to say that it is on that basis that officials checked the methodology against the court’s basket of measures.
I am aware that there were a number of specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked two very specific questions in relation to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, also mentioned it. I wanted to say this in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who was here a moment ago, but I fully recognise that this was hardly textbook behaviour in terms of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a point which I have made in person, having gone to see the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. We did not just ignore the committee. I actually provided a response to the judgment. James Brokenshire provided a response to the judgment. That is contained in the report of the Secondary Legislation Committee. Moreover, the additional material that was required, to say how we had arrived at the judgment and what the impact of it would be, was provided in the appendix, along with a copy of the letter to the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum. Those things were provided but I accept that it was not textbook. I really made a thing with officials of wanting to make sure that we improve our game in making sure that Parliament has the right opportunity to scrutinise these very important instruments and pieces of legislation, especially when they involve a significant change.
Of course, one of the difficulties was that we had a general election in the middle of the arrangements. That made it much more difficult and it meant that, for the regulations to come into force on 10 August, they needed to be announced 21 days in advance, which is the requirement. That is why they were laid on 16 July. Then of course they lay before Parliament to be prayed against for a period of 40 days, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has taken advantage of.
I have tried to set out that there is a substantial basis of support for asylum seekers. We recognise that they are vulnerable. These cash payments need to be seen in the context of that wider support. When people question whether the cash sums are below the poverty line—we were talking about what poverty was in terms of 60% of median earnings—we need to remember that that is in cash terms. But we are talking here not about that but about all the other things: the homes fully furnished; the repairs already paid for; all the utilities bills paid; all the council tax paid; and all the healthcare paid. All of that is there.
Lord Avebury
But these things were all available to the asylum seeker before these changes were made, so the Government have cut £16 from the family income of the people who were receiving these benefits before.
Immigration: Regulations
Lord Avebury Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Serco was offered that contract. One of the principal concerns which many people have had, and which the Women for Refugee Women report also identified, was that there were insufficient female detention officers in that facility and that their numbers needed to be increased. One of the conditions put out before renewing the contract to the tender organisation was that it needed to increase the proportion of female officers. The figure I gave was 65% or 66%; the chief executive may now be saying 60%. I will certainly look into that; I will speak with him and of course will write to the noble Baroness and ensure that she gets the right information. However, the principle is that we need more female detention staff to look after female inmates.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that if every other European country imposes a time limit on the length of detention, there is something wrong with our system? We should find some means to grant temporary status to people who are not going back to their own countries through no fault of their own—sometimes their countries will not accept them.
Lord Bates
My noble friend will recall that that was discussed during the passage of the Immigration Act; the proposal was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and was rejected by the House. We continuously keep that under review, but I reassure the House that 96% of female inmates are there for a period of less than four months—we want to keep detention to the minimum period possible.
Sexual Violence against Girls and Women
Lord Avebury Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
There is a range of helplines and support services, as well as rape help centres, but I totally accept that the role for parents is very strong and profound and that parents need to be aware. As the noble Baroness said earlier, much of this grooming takes place online. That is something that parents need to be especially vigilant about, not just in the context of rape but of all kinds of child sexual exploitation.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, will my noble friend accept on behalf of the Government the recommendation made by two all-party groups on refugees and migration, under the chairmanship of Sarah Teather MP, that women who are victims of rape and sexual violence should not be held in immigration detention?
Lord Bates
The Home Secretary is looking very closely at that very important report, which came out just two days ago, particularly in the context of the very disturbing allegations made about Yarl’s Wood. We take that very seriously and will be responding.
Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre
Lord Avebury Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I will look again at what the noble Lord said at that point. There is of course the independent monitoring board, which is headed by Mary Coussey, a former Independent Race Monitor. The immigration monitoring board has the keys to Yarl’s Wood and can go in and out at any point in time. Obviously, it will need to look very carefully at how it has undertaken its responsibilities, and the conclusions which it has drawn from its activities.
Police: Complaints
Lord Avebury Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
The Government’s position is that we have a zero tolerance of that type of conduct and behaviour. As regards the specific case raised by the noble Baroness, I hope she will understand that I cannot comment on an ongoing IPCC inquiry.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last week the Metropolitan Police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission reached an agreement on how complaints about stop and search and the confiscation of property at ports of entry should be dealt with. Can he tell us how long it will be before individual complainants against the conduct of the police at ports of entry receive an answer to their complaints?
Lord Bates
On the general subject of complaints, there is an ongoing consultation which will report shortly. However, I will have to write to my noble friend on the specifics of his question.
Mediterranean: Refugees and Migrants
Lord Avebury Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I agree with the noble Lord that it would indeed be immoral and, of course, not to help someone in distress would be in contravention of our obligations under the UN convention on safety of life at sea. The Khartoum and Rabat processes, to which I referred, and the EU mobility partnerships that we have with Tunisia and Morocco, are trying to tackle exactly the issue that he raises.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend note the comment made by the UN special rapporteur on migrant rights that it is appalling to bank on a rise in the number in people who drown acting as a deterrent? Does he think that the EU views a steep rise in the number of people killed with complacency, if not with satisfaction, because more people are drowning and acting as a deterrent?
Lord Bates
It is certainly not the case to say that the Government have been passive on this. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary had meetings with her Italian counterparts last month, and will meet them again this month. We have extended our offers of support and of course we have looked at the countries from which most of these migrants are coming, namely Syria and Ethiopia. We are putting large sums of money—£700 million in the first instance, £360 million in the second—to try and help people to give themselves a proper life at home.
Immigration Bill
Lord Avebury Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who made a very powerful speech. I welcome the fact that there has been movement on the part of the Government in these amendments, and I very much welcome the helpful questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who has played such a role in getting us to where we are now. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, acknowledged, some people may still be made stateless as a result of the clause. Therefore, I am not as happy as some other noble Lords appear to be—or perhaps content is the word—and I support Motion B1.
In the Commons, some of the most pertinent questioning came from the Government’s own Back Benches. Sir Richard Shepherd asked,
“how the people of Britain will know that the action has been taken in a rational and reasonable way, when it is obscured from public view”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 194.]
Dr Julian Huppert asked:
“What will happen if somebody in the UK goes through the process, the Home Secretary believes that they are able to get citizenship from another country and they make a bona fide application for that citizenship, but it is turned down?”.
In effect, this was also the question posed today by my noble friend. When pressed—and he had to be pressed—the Minister, James Brokenshire, responded that they could be given,
“limited restricted leave to remain”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 196.]
But that is not a satisfactory substitute for citizenship and the rights that go with it.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others have expressed very grave concerns that the Government may well be waiting for someone to be out of the country to deprive them of citizenship. One concern of the Joint Committee on Human Rights was how often that has happened under the current powers. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister said he has responded to the Joint Committee’s latest letter about that and that he will make that information available to whoever is given responsibility for the review. I thank him for that.
In the Commons, James Brokenshire prayed in aid the fact that the matter had been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights as well as in another place—that is, here—to argue that,
“it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 213.]
Indeed, the Minister made the same point earlier. But the Joint Committee on Human Rights was very critical of the speed with which this measure was introduced and we—I am a member of the committee—made it very clear that we believed that a public consultation,
“would have made for better informed parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s proposal”,
and that the Joint Committee that was proposed would allow for just that kind of proper scrutiny.
Your Lordships’ House made it very clear that it did not consider that there had been sufficient scrutiny by passing the amendment with such a significant majority. The only thing that has happened since then is that the House of Commons has debated for only 90 minutes something of such grave constitutional and moral importance. I really think that the case for a Joint Committee still stands. Indeed, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which published its report on counterterrorism after the debate in the Commons, has supported Lords Amendment 18, which underlines the point made by a number of organisations outside this House that the measure does not guarantee security against terrorism in any way.
I, too, have read the legal debate between the Government and Professor Goodwin-Gill. As a non-lawyer, I am not in a position to be able to judge that debate. Surely, however, the fact that there is such disagreement reinforces the case for a Joint Committee to tease out these very serious legal matters. The Floor of the House is not the place to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has already made clear, so much is at stake. I quoted earlier the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is now in his place, because what he said was so important. He said:
“Statelessness is one of the most terrible things that can befall anyone”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 212.]
The Minister spoke of the evil of statelessness. Another expert in this area said that statelessness was a recipe for exclusion, precariousness and dispossession.
We have not completely averted the danger that we will make somebody stateless as a result of the amendment, welcome as it is. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will stand firm and support Motion B1 because the amendment does not provide a cast-iron guarantee against the evil of statelessness.
Lord Avebury (LD)
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the concessions that have been made by the Government which do, to an extent—although this could be argued—reduce the risk that an individual might become stateless. However, the risk still exists and I still have some concerns apart from those that have been expressed so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agree that we need answers to those questions, but I would like to touch on some other concerns.
We have already heard that the Government recognise what the Supreme Court called, in the case of Al-Jedda, “the evil of statelessness”. They now purport to address that evil by providing in their Amendment 18A that the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds for believing” that the individual she is depriving of his citizenship will be able to become a citizen of some other state to which he formerly belonged. That assumption has been made by other states from time to time, including—as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has pointed out—the Dominican Republic, in the case of persons born in Haiti, and Zimbabwe, in the case of all residents who might have had a claim through having been born in some other country. In the UK, too, the Government asserted for many years that persons of Indian origin who lived in Hong Kong had the right to reclaim the nationality of China—until finally in 2006 we satisfied them that they were wrong.
No doubt Ministers will say that what is now proposed is different, because instead of treating a whole class of persons the same, each case will be examined individually. However, in the case of the people who were formerly dual Malaysians and British Overseas Citizens, and had renounced their Malaysian citizenship in the hope of getting full British citizenship, they had all applied individually and had all been rejected. It was only after several years of correspondence and meetings with Ministers that in October 2013 the then Minister wrote to me asserting that an agreement had been reached with the former Malaysians on a scheme under which they would return to their country of origin, where they could enter a process of regaining the equivalent of indefinite leave to remain after five years; and after a further unspecified time, they would be able to resume Malaysian citizenship. During the whole of that period they would of course remain effectively stateless, as they had been during the latter years of their residence in the United Kingdom.
I wrote to the new Minister, James Brokenshire, on 11 February, asking if I could have a copy of the agreement he had reached with the Malaysians, having had no response to a verbal request made to his predecessor. I also asked about the experience of the one guinea pig returnee under the new arrangement. Having had no answer, I wrote again on 15 March, reminding the Minister of my earlier letter. After two further months, I had had no reply until, finally, after a telephone call this morning, the Minister’s reply arrived by e-mail.
Lord Avebury
Would the Secretary of State have the power to consider the case whereby a person has an entitlement to nationality of a state such as Saudi Arabia where his residence could be more harmful to the United Kingdom than if he were in the UK itself—as one knows from the fact that the vast majority of people who committed the 9/11 atrocity were nationals of Saudi Arabia? If we send people back to Saudi Arabia and they become involved in these offences, it would be immensely harmful to the interests of the United Kingdom.
Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre
Lord Avebury Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No one can be unaware of the fact that detention is a necessary evil. It is part of the requirements that we have in enforcing an immigration policy. However, the inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons found very little evidence of victimisation of women at the centre. It was felt that there was insufficient recognition of particular vulnerabilities of detained women; those points were taken and are being addressed by Yarl’s Wood.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, apart from the chief inspector’s findings on the lack of recognition of the vulnerabilities of women detained in Yarl’s Wood, there was also a finding that the quality of rule 35 reports was poor. Was not the refusal to admit Ms Manjoo not only a kick in the teeth for the UN, violating the terms of its mandate, but an unfortunate indication that those concerns had not been addressed, as the special rapporteur seems to have suspected?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, my Lords, that is not the case. Yarl’s Wood was inspected by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons last year and, overall, the report was positive. I mentioned those aspects of which I felt it was important for the House to be aware. Detention is an essential part of effective immigration control and we take the welfare of those in our care very seriously. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has responsibility for ensuring that those standards are maintained.
Immigration Bill
Lord Avebury Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, first, my apologies for missing the first two sentences of the debate on this amendment. I left 1 Millbank over the road as soon as debate on the Bill started but I am not as nimble as I thought and I make my apologies to the House.
I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his reflection on this matter since Report and for the amendment that the Government have laid. I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in thanking him for the meeting that was arranged at short notice prior to the Recess. I, too, am grateful that the amendment narrows the definition of what the tribunal should consider to be a new matter and that what is or is not a new matter will be for the tribunal to determine according to the legislation. The narrowing of the definition is most welcome as, once the matter is determined to be a new matter, the tribunal cannot hear it without the consent of the Home Secretary.
I am also grateful for the specific guidance outlining the circumstances in which the Home Secretary will consent to such a new matter being in front of a tribunal. I am grateful for my noble friend’s explanation of what will happen if very junior counsel are in front of a tribunal when a new matter is raised and unfortunately they cannot get instructions or the file containing the necessary information.
Everything in the Government’s amendment is welcome as far as it goes but I do not think that it will come as any surprise to the Minister that I remain disappointed that the Government have not laid an amendment giving the tribunal an exceptional discretion to hear a new matter if the demands of justice require it. Justice is of course the overriding purpose of our courts and tribunals, and ordinarily the Secretary of State should be the primary decision-maker on a new matter but not if justice demands otherwise.
On Report, the constitution arguments were ably outlined by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Woolf and Lord Brown. This is the first time that a party to any proceedings will have this kind of control over jurisdiction and I shall be interested to know—as I am sure all noble Lords will be—how it works out in practice. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether, if this new power results in judicial review cases, there will be a way of keeping a record of the judicial review decisions in relation to the guidance and to consent being refused. Will those figures be available some time after the Bill is passed for the purposes of post-legislative scrutiny?
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has pointed out that this is a meaningless amendment because a tribunal would not be able to consider a matter that was not within its jurisdiction in any case. It is disappointing that the Government have not noticeably reflected, as my noble and learned friend assured me they would, on the alternative suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Berridge, on this clause, and supported by several noble and learned Lords, to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its eighth report. Your Lordships were almost unanimous in condemning a proposal to allow one of the parties to an appeal to instruct the tribunal on what matters it can or cannot consider.
My noble and learned friend the Minister did not challenge the assertion that the tribunal had not allowed abuse of its own process in the past or had treated the Secretary of State unfairly, or that the existing process was inefficient. There was no suggestion on Report that the Government had raised any concern in the past over this alleged problem, but if we concede that there might have been cases in which a new matter—which is only to be defined in guidance, as we heard—was raised, that still does not mean that your Lordships should agree to grant this sweeping power to allow the respondent to veto the consideration of the new matter, even when the reason for its last minute appearance was the difficulty in getting hold of the presenting officer, as in one of the cogent examples given by my noble friend in introducing her amendments. In such cases the presenting officer who may have been unable to get instructions from senior counsel overnight can ask for an adjournment. My noble and learned friend did not say that he knew of any instance when such a request had been refused.
My noble friend said that she thought satellite judicial review went against what the Government were seeking to achieve, but that would still be the only way of challenging a decision by the Secretary of State to prohibit the use of a proposed new matter, after the amendment that is now before us. I asked my noble and learned friend whether the Government had made any estimate of the number of judicial review cases likely to be heard as a result of this provision and what would be the estimated reduction in the savings expected from it. I received no answer. I certainly agree with the suggestion made by my noble friend just now that a record should be kept of such cases.
The main reason why the Government insist that the Secretary of State should have this power seems to be, as we have heard, that she is the primary decision-maker of right on these applications rather than the late arrival of new matters, some of which is due to the inaccessibility of the Home Office. Nobody argues with that in principle, although my noble friend Lady Berridge pointed out that the Secretary of State had, in effect, voluntarily abdicated that role by allowing officials to make such a large number of wrongful decisions at first instance.
Even if that problem is solved, there remains a serious objection to what the Government propose. The fundamental principle of the rule of law is the right to a fair trial. In his wonderful book, The Rule of Law, the late noble and learned Lord Bingham emphasised that the right applies to,
“adjudicative procedures of a hybrid kind … proceedings in which one or more parties may suffer serious consequences if an adverse decision is made”.
He goes on to mention a recent case in the Supreme Court in Canada, where the Chief Justice, delivering the unanimous judgment of the court, said that,
“a fair hearing requires that the affected person be informed of the case against him … and be permitted to respond to that case. This right is well established in immigration law”.
Thus, if the applicant is denied the right to present what may be a crucial piece of evidence, he is denied the right to a fair trial. That right trumps the Secretary of State’s right to be the primary decider. This amendment, leaving Clause 15 effectively untouched, does not cover the mischief dealt with so effectively by my noble friend Lady Berridge.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend responded extremely speedily to my bank holiday inquiry, and I am grateful to him for that. The points about whether consent should be required for the tribunal to consider a new matter have been covered quite thoroughly, but I would like to mention the question of guidance. I was curious that this is guidance, because it must be guidance by the Home Office, and therefore the Home Secretary, to the Home Secretary. I would have understood had it been called a code of practice. The title does not really matter: it is the content. I wonder whether there is any distinction between the two.
Having seen the letter to the noble Baroness of 29 April, it seems to me that the way the guidance is described comes quite close to the exercise of discretion. I am aware that I have not put a question mark at the end of any of that, but I felt that I wanted to make those points.
Lord Avebury
“Persons unable to acquire citizenship: natural father not married to mother
After section 4D of the British Nationality Act 1981 insert—“4E The general conditions
For the purposes of sections 4F to 4I, a person (“P”) meets the general conditions if—(a) P was born before 1 July 2006;(b) at the time of P’s birth, P’s mother—(i) was not married, or(ii) was married to a person other than P’s natural father;(c) no person is treated as the father of P under section 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; and(d) P has never been a British citizen.4F Person unable to be registered under other provisions of this Act
(1) A person (“P”) is entitled to be registered as a British citizen on an application made under this section if—
(a) P meets the general conditions; and(b) P would be entitled to be registered as a British citizen under—had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.(i) section 1(3), (ii) section 3(2),(iii) section 3(5),(iv) paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, or(v) paragraph 5 of Schedule 2,had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.(2) In the following provisions of this section “relevant registration provision” means the provision under which P would be entitled to be registered as a British citizen (as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)).
(3) If the relevant registration provision is section 3(2), a person who is registered as a British citizen under this section is a British citizen by descent.
(4) If the relevant registration provision is section 3(5), the Secretary of State may, in the special circumstances of the particular case, waive the need for any or all of the parental consents to be given.
(5) For that purpose, the “parental consents” are—
(a) the consent of P’s natural father, and(b) the consent of P’s mother,insofar as they would be required by section 3(5)(c) (as read with section 3(6)(b)), had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.4G Person unable to become citizen automatically after commencement
(1) A person (“P”) is entitled to be registered as a British citizen on an application made under this section if—
(a) P meets the general conditions; and(b) at any time in the period after commencement, P would have automatically become a British citizen at birth by the operation of any provision of this Act or the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.(2) A person who is registered as a British citizen under this section is a British citizen by descent if the British citizenship which the person would have acquired at birth (as mentioned in subsection (1)(b)) would (by virtue of section 14) have been British citizenship by descent.
(3) If P is under the age of 18, no application may be made unless the consent of P’s natural father and mother to the registration has been signified in the prescribed manner.
(4) But if P’s natural father or mother has died on or before the date of the application, the reference in subsection (3) to P’s natural father and mother is to be read as a reference to either of them.
(5) The Secretary of State may, in the special circumstances of a particular case, waive the need for any or all of the consents required by subsection (3) (as read with subsection (4)) to be given.
(6) The reference in this section to the period after commencement does not include the time of commencement (and, accordingly, this section does not apply to any case in which a person was unable to become a British citizen at commencement).
4H Citizen of UK and colonies unable to become citizen at commencement
(1) A person (“P”) is entitled to be registered as a British citizen on an application made under this section if—
(a) P meets the general conditions;(b) P was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement; and(c) P would have automatically become a British citizen at commencement, by the operation of any provision of this Act, had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.(2) A person who is registered as a British citizen under this section is a British citizen by descent if the British citizenship which the person would have acquired at commencement (as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)) would (by virtue of section 14) have been British citizenship by descent.
4I Other person unable to become citizen at commencement
(1) A person (“P”) is entitled to be registered as a British citizen on an application made under this section if—
(a) P meets the general conditions;(b) P is either—(i) an eligible former British national, or(ii) an eligible non-British national; and(c) had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth, P—(i) would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement, and(ii) would have automatically become a British citizen at commencement by the operation of any provision of this Act.(2) P is an “eligible former British national” if P was not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement and either—
(a) P ceased to be a British subject or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the commencement of any independence legislation, but would not have done so had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth, or(b) P was a British subject who did not automatically become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at commencement of the British Nationality Act 1948 by the operation of any provision of it, but would have done so had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth.(3) P is an “eligible non-British national” if—
(a) P was never a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and(b) had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth, P would have automatically become a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—(i) at birth, or(ii) by virtue of paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1948 (child of male British subject to become citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if the father becomes such a citizen).(4) A person who is registered as a British citizen under this section is a British citizen by descent if the British citizenship which the person would have acquired at commencement (as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)(ii)) would (by virtue of section 14) have been British citizenship by descent.
(5) In determining for the purposes of subsection 1(c)(i) whether P would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies immediately before commencement, it must be assumed that P would not have—
(a) renounced or been deprived of any notional British nationality, or(b) lost any notional British nationality by virtue of P acquiring the nationality of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.(6) A “notional British nationality” is—
(a) in a case where P is an eligible former British national, any status as a British subject or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies which P would have held at any time after P’s nationality loss (had that loss not occurred and had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth);(b) in a case where P is an eligible non-British national— (i) P’s status as a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies mentioned in subsection (3)(b), and (ii) any other status as a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies which P would have held at any time afterwards (had P’s mother been married to P’s natural father at the time of P’s birth).(7) In this section—
“British subject” has any meaning which it had for the purposes of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914;
“independence legislation” means an Act of Parliament or any subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) forming part of the law in the United Kingdom (whenever passed or made, and whether or not still in force)—
(a) providing for a country or territory to become independent from the United Kingdom, or(b) dealing with nationality, or any other ancillary matters, in connection with a country or territory becoming independent from the United Kingdom;“P’s nationality loss” means P’s—
(a) ceasing to be a British subject or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (as mentioned in subsection (2)(a)), or(b) not becoming a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (as mentioned in subsection (2)(b)).4J Sections 4E to 4I: supplementary provision
(1) In sections 4E to 4I and this section, a person’s “natural father” is a person who satisfies the requirements as to proof of paternity that are prescribed in regulations under section 50(9B).
(2) The power under section 50(9B) to make different provision for different circumstances includes power to make provision for the purposes of any provision of sections 4E to 4I which is different from other provision made under section 50(9B).
(3) The following provisions apply for the purposes of sections 4E to 4I.
(4) A reference to a person automatically becoming a British citizen, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is a reference to the person becoming such a citizen without the need for—
(a) the person to be registered as such a citizen by the Secretary of State or any other minister of the Crown;(b) the birth of the person to be registered by a diplomatic or consular representative of the United Kingdom; or(c) the person to be naturalised as such a citizen.(5) If the mother of a person could not actually have been married to the person’s natural father at the time of the person’s birth (for whatever reason), that fact does not prevent an assumption being made that the couple were married at the time of the birth.””
Lord Avebury
My Lords, the rationale behind this amendment, to put it as simply as possible, is to enable a child born before 1 July 2006 to a mother who is not married to the natural father to become a British citizen automatically, or to have an entitlement to be registered as a British citizen in circumstances where the child would have had either of those rights if the parents had been married.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting in principle the amendment that I moved for this purpose in Committee and for deploying the formidable resources of the Bill team to turning the inadequate wording of my original attempt into the text now before your Lordships in Amendments 3 and 5, as well as for the useful exchanges that I had with the Minister and the Bill team during that process.
The reason for the cut-off date is that, after that, a child born to parents who were not married is already covered by the definition of “father” in Section 50(9A) of the British Nationality Act 1981—the BNA. These amendments will now cover the child born before 1 July 2006 whose mother never married the father or who was married to someone else at the time of the child’s birth. This reflects the way the Home Secretary has previously exercised discretion under the Act and will continue to do so for children born post-2006 where the mother’s husband is not the child’s natural father.
Proposed new Section 4F deals with persons who would currently have had an entitlement to register as British citizens under the specified sections of the BNA if their parents had been married. Currently, these persons can be registered at the discretion of the Home Secretary under Section 3(1) of the BNA, but Section 4F gives them an entitlement. If a person would be entitled to registration under Section 3(2) only, had their parents been married, registration under Section 4F gives them citizenship “by descent”—the status they would have acquired if their parents had been married. Section 14 of the BNA needs to be amended to secure this outcome, and this is accomplished by Amendment 5.
If a person would be entitled to registration under Section 3(5), had their parents been married, there is an additional discretion to waive parental consent. For the other specified subsections of the BNA in Section 4F, consent is required from both the mother and the “natural father”—the person who satisfies the proof of paternity regulations made under Section 50(9B) of the BNA.
Proposed new Section 4G covers those born after 1 January 1983 and before 1 July 2006 who would have become British citizens automatically if their parents had been married. The main beneficiaries of this section will be persons born in the UK to a British or settled parent who would have become British citizens under Section 1(1) or 1(1A) if their parents had been married and persons born abroad to a British parent who would have become British citizens under Section 2(1) if their parents had been married.
Proposed new Section 4H covers persons who were citizens of the UK and colonies immediately before 2 January 1983 but did not become British citizens because their parents were not married. This will benefit those who acquired citizenship through birth in a British colony and still had that status on 31 December 1982—for example, a person with a UK-born natural father who was born in a current overseas territory or was born in a former colony and did not acquire citizenship of that country when it became independent. Here again it is necessary to place these persons in the category “by descent” or “otherwise than by descent” to correspond with the status they would have had if their parents had been married. The distinction between these two categories occupies 26 pages of Fransman’s magisterial tome on British nationality law, so I hope your Lordships will be content with that reference.
Proposed new Section 4I benefits people who would have acquired British citizenship in three situations: first, if they were British subjects or citizens of the UK and colonies by birth in a former colony and would not have lost that status when that country became independent if their parents had been married; secondly, if they were British subjects before 1 January 1949 and would have become a CUKC on that date if their parents had been married; and thirdly, if they did not acquire the status of British subject or citizen of the UK and colonies but would have done so if their parents had been married. This will also benefit those who would have acquired citizenship under Section 5(1)(a), (c) or (d) of the British Nationality Act 1948. I am sorry to say that that will not apply to those whose parents had the right to register their births at a British consulate under Section 5(1)(d) while they were minors but omitted to do so. That reflects existing law for persons whose parents were married, and the rights of both groups will have to wait for a future opportunity.
Proposed new Section 4J defines a person’s “natural father”. It is interesting to recall that when the BNA was originally going through another place in 1981, the Minister—now the noble Lord, Lord Luce—said that citizenship could not be extended to illegitimate children because,
“the problem of identifying the father in such cases remains insurmountable”.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 17/3/81; col. 623.]
Watson and Crick had received the Nobel Prize for determining the structure of DNA 19 years earlier but the practical applications of their discovery were still a long way in the future. The power in proposed new Section 4J(2) is a broad one but this reflects the power to make different provisions for different circumstances that already exists in Section 50(9B) of the BNA. The provision is intended to benefit potential applicants and ensures that regulations for establishing the proof of paternity can be adapted if circumstances change; for example, following scientific advances.
It has not been possible to deal with the British Overseas Territories in these amendments because of course they would have to be consulted about any proposed amendments to the Act dealing with the forms of citizenship connected with those territories, as we have acknowledged. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could assure me that the Government will launch such a consultation, preferably in the next Session of Parliament, so that, having done so, next time we have an immigration Bill we can deal with the limited number of stateless persons left with only BOTC status. At the same time this will enable us to annul some of the reservations we have put to our accession to the convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.
At Third Reading of the then Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said:
“One can only go so far back in seeking to right the wrongs of history and of previous generations”.—[Official Report, 31/10/02; col. 298.]
My noble friend the Minister echoed this on the last day of Report. In the thickets and undergrowth of immigration law, there are still plenty of wrongs of history waiting to be rectified, but at least if your Lordships agree to these amendments they will remove most of the discrimination against people whose parents were not married that has infected our immigration law in the past. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It would not be in my nature to take anything for granted where Parliament is involved. However, I think I made the position of the Government quite clear on guardians for trafficking when the amendment was considered, and the noble Baroness herself has been well aware of that. I hope she will accept what I am saying. It will be a matter of our listening to the House of Commons, as we must now call the other place, and giving it an opportunity to present to us what it considers of our amendments. That is a reasonable position to take. Meanwhile, this change to the Long Title facilitates the adoption of my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope the House will support because they will be welcomed by many and assist individuals hitherto precluded from British citizenship by historical anomaly. They will therefore be able to register as British citizens if they wish to do so. I am extremely happy to be able to offer my support to my noble friend in this matter.
Lord Avebury
I am extraordinarily grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and for his undertaking to take an opportunity, I hope in the near future, to raise the question of overseas territories and how their position can be brought into line with what we are now about to agree, as far as our own citizenship is concerned.
We have whittled away at the wrongs of history in 2002 and 2006, and now again in 2014. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that on a future occasion we will be able to rectify some of the remaining difficulties that affect our nationality law, particularly the wrong that I think we did to people whose parents did not register them when they were minors. It would have been right, not just in the case of the illegitimate but also for those who were born to married parents, to allow those individuals when they became adults to exercise the rights that their parents had not exercised on their behalf.
However, that is only a very minor niggle compared with my pleasure at being able to move an amendment that grants citizenship to people who are illegitimate in circumstances where, if their parents have been married, they would have had it long ago.
Lord Avebury
“Part 8AProvision relating to persons unable to acquire nationality because natural father not married to mother British Nationality Act 19811 (1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (meaning of “British citizen “by descent””), in subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) the person is a British citizen by descent by virtue of section 4F(3), 4G(2), 4H(2) or 4I(4); or”.(3) In section 41A (registration: requirement to be of good character), in subsection (1), after “5,” insert “4F, 4G, 4H, 4I”.
British Nationality (General) Regulations 20032 (1) In regulation 14 of the British Nationality (General) Regulations 2003—
(a) after “4D(3)” insert “or 4G(3)”;(b) after “section 4D” insert “or 4G”.(2) The provision inserted into regulation 14 by this paragraph may be amended or revoked by the exercise of the powers conferred by section 41 of the British Nationality Act 1981 as if that provision had been inserted by those powers.”
Immigration Bill
Lord Avebury Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I shall add a few words to this important debate. There cannot be many of us in your Lordships’ Chamber who have not been moved by the plight of these very vulnerable young people and children who have been treated so badly. We know the numbers are not huge; nevertheless they are significant. I welcome what the Government said earlier about introducing a pilot system of advocates. However, I do have a problem with how far this would go, having been a local authority councillor and a cabinet member with responsibility for child protection and for unaccompanied children who have often been trafficked. We know that this problem has been going on for many years—the status quo is simply not acceptable. We must act to protect these vulnerable young people.
As I understand it, an advocate is somebody who speaks on behalf of someone else, in this case the child. However, my worry is whether the advocate would have any legal responsibility in the way that a parent would, or, under the amendment, a guardian. The amendment gives the guardian some parental responsibility to act and take decisions in the best interests of the trafficked child, and to work across agencies. We know, as has already been said, how local authorities are stretched. Often a child will have three, four or five social workers in a year. That is not unusual. Very often, they simply get lost trying to navigate a very complex system.
The attraction of a guardian, which is so compelling in the amendment, is that this person would be required by the Secretary of State to take a far more official and statutory responsibility for individual young people and to act in their best interests. I hope that my noble friend will perhaps address this when he comes to respond. Would he be satisfied? Does he think that we should be satisfied that this six-month pilot scheme with advocates will go far enough to protect these very vulnerable children and young people? Otherwise, we would have to consider this very carefully in evaluation, and it may well be too late. What worries me is that we will have a six-month pilot period, followed by the evaluation, but all the time young people are falling between the cracks, going missing, not being picked up and not being protected. At the end of the day, that is what we want—for these children and young people to be protected as long as they are here in our care in this country.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I will just pick up a point that my noble friend made about the difference in powers between the advocate on one side and the guardian on the other. The point was raised in the memorandum sent to us by the Refugee Children’s Consortium whether or not, without “legal powers”, there will be anyone,
“to instruct solicitors on a child’s behalf and ensure that decisions are made in their best interests”.
Would the advocate have those powers to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf? I take it that a guardian certainly would have those powers, which is an important difference between the two proposals that we now have before us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been interesting. This is not the first time that the House has discussed the issue, but I am pleased that it has been raised again for noble Lords to consider. I am also pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, feels that we have travelled a long way. It certainly seems as if we have done so. I accept the feeling that lies behind the amendments and, if I urge the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to withdraw her amendment, it will be on the grounds of things that I will tell her that the Government are doing, not because I think that her feeling on the issue is wrong.
The Government remain absolutely committed to stamping out all forms of modern slavery, and the work on this issue continues apace. I think my noble friend Lord McColl probably knows this already, but there are no half-measures in what we are going to propose. Last December, the Home Secretary published a draft Bill on modern slavery—the first of its kind in Europe—which will ensure the harshest penalties are available for offenders. It consolidates and simplifies existing offences, making the law easier to apply. At the heart of everything we do is the desire to support and protect the victims and to ensure that they receive the help they need to recover from their traumatic ordeal. I met with Frank Field last week, who noble Lords will know is working closely with the Home Office on this very issue, as indeed are a number of noble Lords.
We have listened to the concerns raised in this House and we agree that these children must be afforded the best support and protection from the state. Since this House took a view on this matter during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in December, the Government have announced a trial of specialist independent advocates for trafficked children. The trial will test the specialist independent advocates against the existing system, which will be supported by new, strengthened statutory guidance and regulation in this area. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, showed how important it was that this new system should be able to work reconciled with our existing system, so that we get the best from it. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that these specialist, dedicated advocates will be experts in trafficking, and completely independent of the local authority and social services department. Their role will be to steer the child through the complexity of the multiple government agencies—not just local-authority care, immigration and criminal justice but all government departments. This is to ensure that the child’s voice is heard.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I see the point that the noble Baroness is making. I see no reason why not. If it has security connotations then perhaps it cannot be made public. However, our idea is that the independent reviewer should not be denied information that it considers important to perform its statutory duties as required by our amendment.
The noble Baroness asked about an example of where an individual would be deprived of citizenship on grounds of economic well-being. I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on 26 March and a copy would have been sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. In my letter I agreed that any situation which threatens vital economic assets is likely to be covered by terrorism considerations, but for that very reason we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be properly considered under this power.
The noble Baroness asked whether this goes against the UK’s international obligations to those countries that allow entry to British citizens who are subsequently deprived of that nationality. In the vast majority of cases, it does not. However, the Government note that the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness created limited obligations in this respect. These obligations are limited to the 11 states that have ratified the protocol and apply only if certain conditions are met.
A number of noble Lords mentioned Professor Goodwin-Gill’s paper and his illustration that it was contrary to international law. Professor Goodwin-Gill has some expertise on this topic since he was part of the legal team representing Al-Jedda, but on this topic we believe that he is wrong. He based his analysis in large part on the opinion of Judge Read in the 1955 International Court of Justice case of Nottebohm, but Judge Read’s judgment was a dissenting judgment. We cannot accept the conclusions which Professor Goodwin-Gill derived from it. There is a very limited basis for an obligation to readmit people deprived of citizenship in very limited circumstances, as set out in Article 1 of the 1930 special protocol concerning statelessness. The limited number of state parties that have ratified this convention, together with the lack of state practice conforming to its provisions by states that are not party to the convention, shows that it does not constitute customary international law.
Lord Avebury
I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he has gone into some detail on Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill’s paper, would it be possible for him to lodge a paper in the Library, commenting on all the points raised in it? The Minister also quoted the views of the UK representative when the special protocol was agreed, who was very much in support of the idea that depriving people of their citizenship while they were abroad is illegal.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will be happy to do that. However, I am conscious that noble Lords have been asking for answers today and to give what my noble friend has asked for would probably take the rest of the evening. I do not intend to do that, but I will do it in writing and lodge a copy in the Library.
Lord Avebury
“Descent through the female line
(1) Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition by registration: certain persons born between 1961 and 1983) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3A)(a), after “father,” omit “and”.
(3) In subsection (3A)(b), at beginning insert “where material,”.
(4) In subsection (3A)(b), at end insert—
“(c) where material—(i) the applicant’s mother or father (“the parent in question”) would have acquired citizenship by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, section 5 or 12(2) of, or paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to, the 1948 Act (as the case may be) provided for citizenship by descent from a mother in the same terms as it provided for citizenship by descent from a father, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother, or(ii) the parent in question would have acquired a nationality status by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, a provision of the law at some time before 1st January 1949 which provided for a nationality status to be acquired by descent from a father provided in the same terms for its acquisition by descent from a mother, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother”.(5) In subsection (3B)(a), after “mother,” omit “and”.
(6) In subsection (3B)(b), at beginning insert “where material”.
(7) In subsection (3B)(b), at end insert—
“(c) where material, the parent in question would have acquired a nationality status by descent from a mother on the assumption that, as applied to the parent in question, a provision of the law at some time before 1st January 1949 which provided for a nationality status to be acquired by descent from a father provided in the same terms for its acquisition by descent from a mother, and references in that provision to a father were references to the parent in question’s mother”.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, this amendment deals with persons born abroad prior to 1983 who would have been British today if they had had a paternal grandfather born in the UK, or who would have been entitled to become British citizens by registration today if they had had a maternal grandfather born in the UK, instead of a paternal grandmother or maternal grandmother so born.
Before 1983, a person born abroad to a British father automatically became a British citizen by descent. In certain cases, the children of a citizen by descent also became citizens by descent, automatically or conditionally. So, for example, a person born outside the UK and colonies or, before 1949, outside Her Majesty’s dominions, and whose father was also so born, was a citizen by descent if his paternal grandfather was born in the UK. However, a person born abroad to a British mother and a foreign father had no right to UK citizenship, until this anomaly was dealt with for the first generation in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by the insertion of Section 4C in the British Nationality Act 1981.
However, there remains discrimination in the next generation. A person born abroad before 1983, whose maternal grandfather was born in the UK, so that her mother born abroad was also British, has access to British citizenship through registration under Section 4C. Yet the person whose maternal grandmother was born in the UK, and whose father or mother born abroad did not acquire British citizenship, has no right to UK citizenship. To put it simply, there is discrimination in our law according to whether your grandfather or grandmother was British by birth, all other circumstances being the same.
For this reason, the UK has had to enter a reservation to our ratification of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 9(2) of which provides that:
“States Parties shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of their children”.
Our reservation says that the UK’s acceptance of Article 9 shall not,
“be taken to invalidate the continuation of certain temporary or transitional provisions which will continue”,
beyond 1 January 1983. My noble friend would probably agree that a reservation which has lasted for 31 years cannot rightly be described as temporary or transitional, and that our commitment to gender equality is incompatible with the existence in our nationality law of a provision, the removal of which is unlikely to affect more than a few people. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend has long campaigned about the citizenship rights of children of British mothers, and indeed he was involved in getting us to where we are today in having a route for those born before 1983 to acquire the status that they would have had had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. However, as my noble friend will recognise, nationality law is complex and it is not straightforward to legislate to cater for all the anomalies that exist.
Before I discuss the amendment, noble Lords will remember that my noble friend introduced an amendment in Committee concerning the citizenship position of illegitimate children of British fathers. I committed to consider the matter further. I have not forgotten. It is in hand and I am continuing to look at this in conjunction with my noble friend. He will have seen our first two attempts to deal with this matter and he can be assured that yet another, more straightforward version will be with him shortly. The intention is that an amendment on the issue will be brought forward at Third Reading.
The amendment proposed by my noble friend today seeks, as he said, to amend Section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow a person to acquire British citizenship through their grandmother if they would have been able to do so had women been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men. I understand that citizenship could normally be passed on for one generation born overseas but that there are a limited number of cases where a person could acquire citizenship on the basis of their grandfather’s citizenship. An example of this might be where the grandfather was born in the UK and either his child or grandchild was born in a country, such as a UK protectorate, where the Crown exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Although I recognise what my noble friend is trying to achieve here, I reiterate the point that was made when this issue was debated in the past: we can only go so far to right the wrongs of history. The original intention of Section 4C was to cater for the children of UK-born women, but the current legislation affects all children of British women. However, we think that there would be difficulties in extending this further to cover the grandchildren of British women as that could result in even more complexities. I think that my noble friend will recognise the complexity of the law in this area.
We recognise that there are some people who acquired citizenship through a grandfather and others who could not do so through a grandmother. However, where families have maintained a close and ongoing connection with the UK, those grandchildren could have acquired British citizenship through another route, such as registration or naturalisation based on a period of residence here. Those whose parents have never lived in the UK and have not established their own connections here are likely to have the citizenship of the country of their birth or residence.
I know that this will be disappointing to my noble friend but I cannot accept his amendment. However, I thank him for bringing it forward and for giving me an opportunity to explain the Government’s position.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I recognise the Minister’s phrase about not being able to rectify all the wrongs of history but I do not agree with that expression. I think that we ought to remedy the wrongs of history and this would have been an excellent opportunity to do so in the case of what I think my noble friend acknowledges would be a very small number of people. However, I also recognise the realities of the situation—that, unlike the two previous amendments on which there were Divisions, I would not be so successful if I were to seek the opinion of the House.
Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment but, first, I should like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for what he said about the amendment to enable illegitimate children born before 1983 to acquire British citizenship in circumstances where they would already have been able to do so if they had been legitimate. I hope that in our final draft, following the previous two, which the Minister mentioned, we will give the Secretary of State discretion to waive requirements that may be imposed on a parent in the event of the parent being unco-operative or no longer able to fulfil the requirement by reason of incapacity or death. I am also concerned that in the final draft we should avoid any ambiguity between registration and consular registration and avoid imposing any consular registration requirements which the parents of an illegitimate child might not have met, bearing in mind the stigma attached to illegitimacy in those days.
When my noble friend comes to produce the third draft at Third Reading, I should be most grateful if those points could be borne in mind. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.