Immigration Bill

Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak mainly to Amendment 56. I apologise to the House that I have not spoken in previous stages of the Bill although I have been present for the overwhelming majority of the debates in this House. I rise somewhat reluctantly in support of the Government as I fully understand some of the concerns many noble Lords, including many of those on my own Benches, have on this issue. I have been struggling to balance both sides of the argument in this complex area. However, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have some issues with what he has said this afternoon.

My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship where the person concerned has acquired such citizenship through fraudulent means, whether it makes them stateless or not. If it is subsequently discovered that it is simply not true that the individual is entitled, and never has been entitled, to British citizenship, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep it, just because that would otherwise make them stateless? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said this afternoon that that is understandable. The Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, provided that that does not make them stateless. Therefore, if it is discovered that a naturalised British subject has been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, for example, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep their acquired British citizenship?

The new power the Secretary of State seeks through Clause 64 is the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK even if it does make them stateless. If it is right that a naturalised British subject should have their British citizenship revoked because they have been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep that British citizenship just because it would otherwise make them stateless?

Some groups have said—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for whom I have the utmost respect said it this afternoon—that it is disproportionate in any circumstances to make somebody stateless, and that it is rogue states and autocratic Governments which have used powers to make their own citizens stateless. That argument has been used to support not giving the Home Secretary these new powers. There is no power, and the Government are not seeking a power, to make stateless those born in this country or those entitled to British citizenship from birth. Here we are talking about citizenship that has been given to those individuals by the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State is seeking the power to take away from them if—and only if—their conduct justifies such revocation.

Some groups have argued that there is a wealth of terrorism-related offences that a person can be prosecuted for as an alternative to revocation of citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has suggested that TPIMs might be another way of dealing with this issue. Clearly, where there is evidence that can be placed before a court, and the individual is in the UK and can be prosecuted, every effort should be made to prosecute them. However, there will be a small number of cases where intelligence of involvement in terrorism cannot be made public.

I have no inside knowledge of the policing of terrorism but, as an example, it is in the public domain that in the past the security services have infiltrated terrorist organisations, and others within such organisations have provided intelligence to the security services about other individuals’ involvement in terrorism. In such cases, the lives of those who provide such intelligence from within would be put at risk if that intelligence were made public. That is, of course, not to say there should be no judicial oversight of such decisions. Anyone deprived of British citizenship, as my noble friend the Minister said, has a full right of appeal and those cases involving closed material would be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that, as these appeals will be heard by SIAC, legal aid will be available to those involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this.

I also think it is important that there is further oversight of the way in which these powers, if granted, would be used. While I largely accept the case for the Secretary of State having these powers, we have seen in the past the possibility of mission creep and testing the boundaries of powers given to Ministers. That is why I am very pleased to see the Government’s amendment, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to ensure that, for example, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation conducts regular reviews into the use of these powers.

Even if it is necessary and proportionate to deprive somebody of citizenship so that it makes them stateless—and I accept that some noble Lords will argue that making someone stateless is disproportionate in any circumstances—some have asked what benefits this would bring. It has been argued that if citizenship is revoked while the individual is abroad, that would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in whatever country they happen to be when their citizenship is revoked. Is it not the case that if they retained a valid British passport, these dangerous people are more likely to be able to travel at will to whatever country they like in pursuit of their terrorist ends? It has also been argued that it will make it more likely that dangerous people who are temporarily abroad will be sent back to the UK because they no longer have a British passport.

Contrary to the briefing provided by the Government, I accept that if someone entered a country with a British passport that is then revoked when they try to leave that country they are most likely to be sent back to the UK, if they do not or cannot regain their original nationality. This seems to be the area about which most noble Lords are concerned this afternoon: that were the UK to refuse admission, it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations. I would very much like some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to what would happen in such circumstances. However, if they were to return to the UK they can be given limited leave to remain, which means that they can be subject to restrictions such as reporting any changes to their employment or address, or being required to report regularly to a police station. On the other hand, if they still hold British citizenship it would be easier for them to be involved in the development of terrorist networks, for example, or in providing support for terrorism or training or assistance in planning terrorist attacks without restriction.

Making someone stateless is a very serious matter that should be contemplated only in the most extreme of circumstances. I believe that such extreme circumstances can and do arise and that the Secretary of State should be allowed to exercise such powers without further delay, subject to the safeguards that already exist and those proposed by the government amendment.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to support government Amendment 56A and Clause 64 itself. I have followed closely the important and impressive debates on this clause in Committee and today. By the way, anyone who doubts the value of the House of Lords should read those speeches, because they demonstrate clearly this House’s concern for the rights of the individual.

The issue with which this House is grappling, not for the first time, is how to strike the balance between national security and the rights of the individual, in particular the situation that can arise when the Home Secretary of the day has reason to believe that an individual poses a grave threat to the UK’s national security but when, for various reasons, that person cannot be charged and brought to court. This is a dilemma with which Parliament has had to wrestle in recent years. Where a person poses such a threat but cannot be brought to court, it is right that Parliament should concern itself with the treatment and rights of that individual and the practicalities, as this House did on 17 March and is doing again today. I have had to ask myself: are there any instances of a Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, depriving a person of citizenship on scant evidence and without good reason?