Immigration Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has asked me to express his apologies to the House for his absence abroad today.

Clause 64 would give the Home Secretary power to decide that British citizenship obtained by naturalisation should be removed for reasons of the public good, even if the result would be to render the person stateless. Amendment 56 would establish a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider all aspects of the Government’s proposal and report back. Parliament could then take an informed view on whether the benefits, if any, of the Government’s proposal outweighed any detriments. A Joint Committee is required because Clause 64 was added to the Bill very late in the passage of the Bill through the other place—that is, 24 hours before Report and Third Reading on 30 January, so there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this proposal, no consultation and no opportunity for consideration by the Public Bill Committee of the other place. The absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation is especially unfortunate in a context such as this. The Home Secretary said, in introducing this clause in the Commons on 30 January:

“Depriving people of their citizenship is a serious matter. It is one of the most serious sanctions a state can take against a person and it is therefore not an issue that I take lightly”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/14; col. 1038.]

The need for proper scrutiny by a Joint Committee is not an abstract matter. The implications of Clause 64 raise matters of real concern on which there is very limited information, as the debates in Committee in your Lordships’ House demonstrated. Many questions were posed in Committee as to how this proposed power would work and what its consequences would be. A Joint Committee will need to consider the practical implications and the international implications of implementing this power. As discussed in Committee, there are real concerns that the proposed measure would do little to protect the national interest and may be counterproductive. It is difficult to understand what would be achieved by taking away the citizenship of a person resident here. It may be more difficult to remove them from this country as other countries would be less willing to accept them without a passport.

In his letter dated 4 April—which I and other Peers received and for which I thank the noble Lord—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, emphasised, rightly, that we are concerned in this clause with dangerous individuals, individuals who pose, as he said, a serious national security risk to the United Kingdom. There is no dispute about that. The question is how the exercise of a right to remove British citizenship would assist in protecting us against such individuals. The noble Lord said in his letter that the Home Secretary is concerned to prevent such people from travelling abroad using a British passport to participate in terrorist training activities. However, the Secretary of State already has power to withdraw a British passport from dangerous individuals for precisely such a reason without stripping them of their nationality and making them stateless. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, made a Written Ministerial Statement on this very subject to the House on 25 April of last year.

In practice, it seems likely that a deprivation of citizenship would normally occur while the individual is out of this country. However, that raises a concern that other countries may well say that the individual was allowed in only by reason of the fact that they were travelling on a British passport, and now that that status has been removed and the person has no other nationality, we, the United Kingdom, can have them back. Your Lordships may have seen the advice of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, professor of international refugee law at Oxford University, that in those circumstances this country would have an international law obligation to the other state to readmit that individual, however objectionable their conduct.

The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the adverse international implications. This country played a leading international role in the drafting of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. We have done much since then to encourage other nations to refrain from inflicting on their citizens what Lord Wilson, in the Al-Jedda case in the Supreme Court last year, described as “the evil of statelessness”. There are, regrettably, all too many dictators around the world who are willing to use the creation of statelessness as a weapon against opponents and we should do nothing to suggest that such conduct is acceptable.

The Government have now, very late in the passage of the Bill, brought forward their own amendment to provide for post-legislative scrutiny, and the Minister will speak to that. However, the noble Lord’s Amendment 56A does not say who will conduct this post-legislative scrutiny or indeed require that they are even independent of the Home Office. The noble Lord’s amendment allows for information in the scrutiny report not to be published. In any event—this is the crucial point—the Government’s Amendment 56A does not meet my concern because proper consideration of the implications of this proposed power to render people stateless is required before legislation is enacted and not afterwards.

Given the absence of pre-legislative scrutiny, the late stage at which Clause 64 was added to the Bill and the lack of clarity as to how this power will operate and with what consequences, we should refer it to a Joint Committee so that Parliament can be properly informed on these difficult and important issues. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley)]

I must tell your Lordships that if Amendment 56 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 56ZA to 56ZD inclusive for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the terms of our amendment at this stage and then come back to address the debate. I would not do so unless I thought that it would be helpful to the House.

I begin by reminding the House of the background to and context of the proposals in Clause 64. It is a fundamental duty of any Government to protect the British public and to maintain the security of the UK against a range of threats, as I think noble Lords will understand. This provision is intended to strengthen our position in a very important, targeted and limited way.

Sadly, a minority of individuals choose to become British citizens and then, later, seek to threaten our security, subvert our values and laws, and fight against our Armed Forces. It would be perverse if such people, while attacking our forces or terrorising civilians, could invoke our protection. People who have chosen to become British have taken an oath in which they pledge to respect the UK’s rights and freedoms, uphold the UK’s democratic values and fulfil their duties and obligations as British citizens. Despite this oath, some act in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom.

I know that noble Lords are concerned about the potential impact of leaving a person stateless and I accept that this is not something to be contemplated lightly. The Home Secretary acknowledged this when she introduced the clause and made clear how seriously she regards her personal responsibilities in this regard. However, again, I must remind the House that not only would every individual have the opportunity to challenge the decision on appeal but some who are deprived would be able to fall back on another nationality with no difficulty.

I listened to the arguments raised by noble Lords in Committee about the need for an independent reviewer and I am pleased to say that we have agreed to this. We have not yet decided who should conduct reviews. It may be appropriate to appoint the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson, to take on this additional task. We are mindful of the fact that if the review of deprivation power is added to the demands on him, it must not be to the detriment of his capacity to meet his existing important statutory duties. That is why the name of the independent reviewer is not in the amendment. None the less, it may be him.