Immigration Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Lords Chamber

As an amendment to Motion B, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 18”.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his care in initiating this debate and addressing some of the issues that have been raised here and in the other place. When your Lordships’ House voted by a majority of 62 to refer the issue of making someone stateless to a Joint Committee of both Houses, it did so not to frustrate the Government in any way but to assist them in their deliberations.

I will not rehearse the detail here but it was clear that the Government’s proposed new clause to extend the power to deprive an individual of naturalised citizenship, and in so doing make them stateless, had not been adequately or effectively considered in the other place. As we have said before, the amendment was tabled 24 hours before Report and there was no prior consultation or consideration in Committee, just a last minute amendment and short debate before it was accepted. I note the point the Minister has just made about adequate consideration having been given to the measure recently in the other place. However, it has to be said that even then the Deputy Speaker asked for brief speeches because of time constraints. We believe that further and more detailed consideration should be given to the matter in your Lordships’ House. In contrast to the other place, we had two excellent debates in Committee and on Report. The outcome of those two debates was that this matter required further examination because of the importance and complexity of the issues raised. An amendment was then tabled in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, was passed by 62 votes, and returned to the other place for further consideration. The other place rejected our amendment. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have taken note of some of the issues raised in our debates and have brought forward their own amendments. Government Amendment 18A refers to the reasonable grounds that the Home Secretary would have to have before making a naturalised citizen stateless, and government Amendment 18B is about a review. We certainly welcome the fact that the Government recognise the deficiencies in their original proposal and have sought to deal with some of the difficulties.

The reasons the Government gave for bringing forward the proposed new clause was the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Al-Jedda case, in which it was ruled that by depriving Mr Al-Jedda of his naturalised citizenship on the ground that that was conducive to the public good, the Secretary of State had made him stateless. The Supreme Court quoted from the Government’s own guidance in saying that it was necessary for a naturalised citizen to hold another citizenship not merely to apply for it, or have the right or the ability to apply, for the Secretary of State to be able to withdraw citizenship and in effect make them stateless, which she should not be able to do. As I have confessed before in your Lordships’ House, I am not a lawyer, and I listened with great care to those who have far greater legal expertise in this area than I do. However, it seems that by amending the law through Amendment 18A to ensure that the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual is able to acquire another citizenship, she would be able to deprive him of his British nationality in those circumstances even if it made him stateless. I think that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—used the phrase “recourse to apply”. However, I reread what the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, said in the debate in the other place. At col.191 of Commons Hansard of 7 May, he said it was important that the person was able to acquire another nationality, and repeated that at col. 192. At col. 194, he said that there should be the “ability to obtain citizenship”, but then said at col. 195 that the Home Secretary had to be,

“satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of another country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 195.]

We need clarity on that point. Is it a question of being able to gain citizenship or the ability to seek citizenship? All those phrases were used by James Brokenshire in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in your Lordships’ House on 19 March that,

“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 213.]

I would therefore welcome further clarification from the Minister.

In the Al-Jedda case, the Secretary of State referred to the original nationality that Mr Al-Jedda held, whereas this amendment, if I have understood it correctly, refers to the Home Secretary having “reasonable grounds” to believe that they could obtain citizenship of any country. In which case, does this government amendment go further than what is required to comply with the Al-Jedda judgment?

Although the Al-Jedda judgment represented an important principle in this debate, it was not the only issue that gave us cause for concern. Questions and issues remain around both the principle and practical implications, which I hope the noble Lord will address in his response. It was the lack of certainty on those points and those that arise from the new amendment that led to the need for further, more detailed examination by a Joint Committee. Perhaps I may therefore raise the concerns that remain about the implications for our relationship with other countries. I have read the legal opinion of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who is a professor of international refugee law at the University of Oxford, a senior research fellow at All Souls College, and a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. His opinion from looking at international law is that the Government’s proposals risk damaging international relations and could lead to breaches of international obligations. I know that the noble Lord rejects that, but Professor Goodwin-Gill has provided a 20-page opinion that raises a number of issues that, at the very least, should be further considered and addressed to the satisfaction of your Lordships’ House.

I greatly welcomed the Government’s commitment to respond to that opinion. I was sorry that it arrived so late on Friday in order for us to have an opportunity to look at it. I am sorry that robust responses were not available for earlier consideration. However, I have now had the opportunity to read that response. Although it deals with various treaty obligations, it does not address the practical or diplomatic implications that I raised previously. We all know that the fight against terrorism is international and global. That highlights the need for international co-operation and collaboration. We really need proper and proportionate consideration of the implications for national and international security. This amendment would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in any country where they happened to be when their citizenship of the UK was revoked. When citizenship has been withdrawn from citizens who are overseas, will the country that has admitted that individual in good faith on a British passport be consulted or advised at any stage that that person has had British citizenship withdrawn from them—even after citizenship has been withdrawn?

The noble Lord will recall that Professor Goodwin-Gill stated:

“Any state which admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and, as a matter of right, to return that person to the United Kingdom”.

The Government dispute that but the Minister confirmed to me in his letter of 25 March that the Government have not discussed the development of what was then Clause 60, on deprivation of citizenship, with other countries and do not consider it necessary to do so. I still find it quite incredible that the Government do not think that they have to consider other countries and debate this issue with them prior to implementation. In his letter, the noble Lord also relied on the statement that other countries allow for deprivations to make people stateless. He used, as the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, used in the other place, the Republic of Ireland and Belgium as examples. I was not aware of the position of Belgium on the issue and whether it has made anyone stateless in recent years, but the Minister could have quoted Tunisia, Lithuania, or countries that have rendered political opponents or ethnic minorities stateless—such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Serbia and Russia.

This country has a proud record over half a century of opposition to making individuals stateless. What about our relationship with, for example, the USA, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries and Italy? These countries have not taken a power to make citizens stateless. Again I looked at the response of Professor Goodwin-Gill in reply to the Government’s response. He took the view—I do not know whether this is correct; it is one of the reasons why we consider that such examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses is essential—that it would appear that Her Majesty’s Government have never accepted that another state has a right and is able unilaterally to denationalise its citizens while they are present in the UK, so making this country responsible for its residents’ safety and well-being. Are we imposing an obligation on other countries that we would not ourselves accept?

I should like to raise a second issue which was also raised in the other place and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond on this point specifically. It concerns what will happen if someone cannot obtain another citizenship despite their very best efforts to do so. The Government propose that the Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds for believing that someone can acquire another citizenship, but what if they cannot? It has to be recognised that although someone may be entitled to apply for the citizenship of another country, they may not in practice be able to acquire it. The Minister admitted as much in his letter to me of 25 March when he said:

“The number of people affected by this new provision will be very low and not all remain stateless as some may be able to acquire or re-aquire another nationality”.

I know that that was written before the new amendment but it does not change the position of a person’s statelessness or ability to gain another citizenship.

In responding to similar questions in the other place, James Brokenshire referred to those who make no effort to obtain another citizenship. But that is a completely different point. If the Home Secretary’s belief that they could obtain another citizenship was reasonably held but it was wrong and they were unable to do so, what action could then be taken to avoid a lengthy period of statelessness? The Minister talked about not wanting an arbitrary time limit for such a decision to be made, but there is no time limit in the amendment for the Secretary of State to look again to see whether it was a reasonable decision which was not correct.

The Minister spoke of a limited form of leave to remain being available to those stranded in country. What form would that take and what are the state’s obligations? How does that make UK citizens safer? If someone from outside the UK cannot obtain another citizenship, what are the implications? They may not be in their country of birth or of a previous citizenship. Given that our Government have had no discussions with other countries about this, the point being made by Professor Goodwin-Gill about being returned to the UK has to be a possibility at the very least. The country that admitted them in good faith has done so as it believed them to have British citizenship at the time. They will not be admitted back into the UK so I am slightly alarmed that they might end up like the character played by Tom Hanks in the film “The Terminal”. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the film but it is based on a true story of the case of Mehran Karimi Nasseri who, having been expelled from Iran, was refused entry to London and sent back to France where he was arrested. I will not go into the details but he ended up spending 18 years in Charles de Gaulle Airport because he was stateless. That is not the only example, but I hope that it is the most extreme one. I found several cases of people being detained at airports for several weeks or months.

If the purpose of the clause is to make us safer from terrorists, we need greater clarity and certainty on what happens to those who become stateless, particularly those from outside the country. Unless there is certainty, we could end up in some kind of legal quagmire with cases being taken to court because of the lack of certainty. I am sure we all want to avoid that.

I shall touch briefly on Amendment 18B. We welcome the review outlined by the Minister. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment differs in that the amendment of the noble Baroness referred to an annual review, which I think would be a much improved position on waiting, after the initial one-year review, for one every three years. That seems to be a very long timescale for the power that the Secretary of State wants to take.

Our concern remains that this amendment still allows for what the Supreme Court described as the “evil of statelessness”. Although the government amendment offers some concessions to the concerns raised by that particular case, I would welcome further clarity from the Minister as we are not yet convinced that the argument has been made for individuals who are terror suspects and are stateless. I am looking here at the interests of national and international security. I shall listen carefully to the debate, to the legal expertise that we have in your Lordships’ House, and to the Minister’s response. However, we need a full examination of this issue to ensure that we fulfil our obligations without making people stateless, given the difficulties and concerns that that raises. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that the Home Secretary will not exercise powers, which are clearly very important powers, carelessly or in any way that would damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I can assure the noble Lord that all such factors will be considered by the Home Secretary when she considers the question of deprivation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he has taken and the effort he has made to address the points that have been raised in the debate. I concur entirely with his remarks about internal and international security. Obviously, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and secure at all times. There has to be consideration of those issues when they are brought before your Lordships’ House. I can assure him that our consideration of these issues has at its heart the security of this nation and our international obligations to tackle terrorism. As the noble Lord said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. We have benefited from substantial legal expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for confessing that, like the Minister and me, she is not a lawyer. It is significant that even with the legal expertise in your Lordships’ House there is no complete agreement among lawyers, either. We made that point earlier.

I welcome the fact that the Government have moved away from the position that they took previously when the issue was debated in Committee and on Report. I welcome the answers given by the Minister. A lot of the debate hinges on one particular issue. I am grateful for the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the conversations we have had. One of his questions summed up clearly the issue of the power to take away British citizenship if it relies on a discretionary power of another state. The noble Lord was very honest in his response to that. We have no power to know what another state will do. Other states have discretionary powers on whether to make people citizens.

The Government’s Motion rests on whether somebody is able to obtain citizenship. It hangs on the interpretation of that. We have concerns in that we want to avoid at all costs somebody becoming stateless—the evil of statelessness via the Supreme Court—and the dangers that that would bring to citizens of this country and abroad. I mentioned that James Brokenshire, the Minister in the other place, gave three different interpretations of what being able to obtain other citizenship could mean. If somebody is unable to obtain another citizenship and they remain stateless, at what point would the Home Secretary have to say, “We have a problem; this person does not have citizenship of any country”? There is a danger in leaving somebody abroad who we think is a danger to this country and involved in terrorism, who is stateless in another country or who remains in this country and cannot travel.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the intention was that those who are dangerous should leave—but they cannot do so if they have not got citizenship of any other country. The noble Lord also made the point that our position has changed. I can assure him that our position has not changed. These are the very same issues we raised in Committee and on Report, and we wanted to consider them in the light of the changes that the Government have made.

We have to consider the practical and diplomatic implications here. I know the Minister says that there is no need to discuss this issue with other countries, but he was not even able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that, if we remove citizenship from an individual who we suspect of being involved in terrorist activity while they are in another country, we would notify the Government of that country that we were doing so. That seems to be a rather irresponsible attitude and I worry that we will be passing the problems of terrorism on to other countries when international co-operation is so essential.

I do not wish to detain the House. We have had an interesting and worthy debate on this issue. What the Government have not been able to do, however, is rule out the possibility that we will make people who could be highly dangerous stateless. All it requires is that the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual can obtain other citizenship—but if those grounds are wrong and the individual cannot do so, we do not know what will happen to that individual.

The point was made when we debated this previously that we are not saying to the Government, “No, this must not happen”, but that there are still a number of questions which remain unanswered even at this late stage. They include the issue of what happens to someone when they have been rendered stateless and what the implications are for our relationships with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gave examples, and I am not sure that the Minister’s answer was that someone could not be made stateless.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. To be clear, what I said about the Opposition was not that they have not changed, but that they have not changed in the light of the changed circumstances of this concession.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister cheers the noble Lord on, but no one else is doing so. I said in response to the Government’s changes to their Motion that they do not remove the danger of statelessness. The noble Lord referred to the Pepper v Hart ruling, and he is absolutely right. What the Minister here and the Minister in the other place say is very important, but we have now had many interpretations from Ministers of what the amendment actually means.

Again, this has been a useful and interesting debate which I value, but we are seeking certainty on a number of issues, and that has not been forthcoming today. I believe that this matter would benefit from further consideration. It does not have to delay business. We are at the end of this Session, but it could be brought back quickly at the start of the next Session. It is important that we understand the implications for the security of this country and for individuals living in it. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.