---

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 71:

Page 3, line 20, leave out "2(2A)" and insert "2B"

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 and 81 to 85. Although at first sight the amendments appear somewhat complex, they are designed to secure two fairly simple and, I hope, uncontroversial objectives.

First, we want to remove certain inconsistencies between Clauses 4 and 85 of the Bill. Each of those enables, albeit in different circumstances, an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission if the Secretary of State has certified that his decision was made in reliance on information that should not be disclosed in the interests of national security or on similar grounds. However, Clause 4 as drafted refers to,

"another matter of a political kind",

whereas Clause 85 refers to,

"another reason of a political kind".

The amendment will ensure that both clauses refer to,

"another reason of a political kind".

The second objective is to provide a free-standing provision in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 for appeals against deprivation of citizenship. That would avoid complications that would result if other provisions in the 1997 Act relating to appeals against immigration and asylum decisions were to be amended. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an appropriate moment at which to ask: what exactly is meant by,

"another reason of a political kind"?

Presumably, it means a little more than that one does not like the chap's politics. If so, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could tell us what.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am loath to say too much. That is a matter for the court to decide,

8 Jul 2002 : Column 539

but it refers to matters of equivalent significance to those mentioned in proposed new Section 40A(2)(a), national security, and in proposed new Section 40A(2)(b), international relations, but not of precisely the same nature. Information from non-state sources proving relevant to the decision to deprive on the basis of activity prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom would be an example. Sensitive information relating to industrial espionage may be another.

Earl Russell: My Lords, presumably the provision must add something to the interests of national security and the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or it would not be there. What does it add?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the relationship is that it will cover matters of equivalent significance to national security and international relations, but not of precisely the same nature. There are categories of things that would fall within the category that I have defined.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 72, I must inform your Lordships that, if Amendment No. 72 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 73 for reasons of pre-emption.

Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 72:

Page 3, leave out lines 22 to 30.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is concern about the retrospective effect of Clause 4. It appears to give the Secretary of State power to apply the powers conferred on him by Clause 4(3) retrospectively. For example, anyone who obtained citizenship through fraudulent means, even before the Bill came into force, could be deprived of citizenship. That retrospective application of the law runs counter to basic legal principles. More interestingly, perhaps, why do the Government feel the need to assume that retrospective power? Do they have any particular case in mind?

We have been advised by the Immigration Advisory Service that the clause would effectively be retrospective legislation, giving a power to remove people's existing rights to a lower standard of proof than that of "beyond reasonable doubt". The fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact need not have been committed by the person losing his citizenship but could have been made, or be alleged to have been made, by a third party. That is a matter of concern, and we await the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, one further point arises. Has the noble and learned Lord taken advice on the application of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights? I have heard the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General describe the article as a

8 Jul 2002 : Column 540

provision against retrospection. No doubt, there is some reason why it does not apply here, but I should be glad to know what it is.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: A power to withdraw citizenship on the grounds that the registration or naturalisation from which it results was obtained by fraud, false representation or the concealment of a material fact is included in subsection (3) of proposed new Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Proposed subsection (6) would simply make it clear—one might say for the avoidance of doubt—that a similar power exists in relation to persons who derive their present citizenship from registration or naturalisation granted before the 1981 Act entered into force on 1st January 1983.

In setting out the provisions in this way we have followed the pattern of the existing Section 40, in which subsections (2)(b) and (c) serve a similar purpose to that of our subsection (6). We are therefore simply continuing the power to deprive that existed pre-1983. There is no obvious justification for excluding those who became citizens by registration or naturalisation before 1983 from the ambit of the powers to deprive on these grounds. The present law makes no such distinction, and the general thrust of the Bill is to treat all our citizens equally in that respect. I hope that that explains the proposition.

Lord Dholakia: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 74:

Page 3, line 30, at end insert—

"(7) The exercise of any power conferred on the Secretary of State by virtue of this section shall not affect the rights of abode or leave to remain of any person or his dependants."

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 74 probes what effect, if any, the deprivation of citizenship would have on the right of abode, or leave to remain, of both the person affected and his dependants. Having deprived a person of his citizenship, the Secretary of State may wish to deport him in the public interest. The amendment seeks to prompt an explanation from the Government as to such a person's immigration status, and the way in which any revocation of permission to stay in Britain and any deportation action would have to be taken under other provisions of the law.

Such a person might have a spouse who is not a British citizen, but who has the right to live in this country. I presume that this person's rights would not be affected by the deprivation of citizenship of his spouse. I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the point. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us an opportunity to explain the effect of removal. The effect of granting British citizenship is to remove a person from the scope of our

8 Jul 2002 : Column 541

immigration controls. Any pre-existing leave to remain in the United Kingdom automatically lapses, since the person concerned no longer requires such leave and, indeed, cannot be made subject to it.

Following the removal of British citizenship, which is what the amendment is probing, the person concerned becomes once again subject to control under the immigration legislation. Consideration would need to be given by the Secretary of State to whether the person should thereafter be permitted to remain in the United Kingdom and, if so, on what terms.

I accept that it is a probing amendment, but as drafted it seeks to take the decision out of the hands of the Secretary of State by providing that any right of abode or leave to remain in the United Kingdom would survive the loss of citizenship; I presume with the intention—although it is doubtful whether the amendment would in fact achieve it in all cases—of preventing the person's removal, and that of his family, from the United Kingdom.

It would be wrong to take such a step. It is implicit in what I am saying that the right of abode goes with the removal of British citizenship. The ability to remove from the UK a person deprived of his citizenship is a power which should not in the Government's view be given up. Its use in certain circumstances might be appropriate; for example, when someone is engaged in terrorist activity. The position of dependants would, of course, be taken into account in any case where removal or deportation from the United Kingdom was under consideration, but I should make it clear that the citizenship of a spouse would not be affected by the removal of citizenship from his or her spouse. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Earl Russell: Will the noble and learned Lord clarify the point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the effect on an unborn child of the parent being deprived of his citizenship?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I cannot do so immediately. I suspect that the answer is that if the citizenship had been removed before the child was born, the position of the child would be as if he was born to someone who was not a citizen. But perhaps I could confirm that if I turn out to be wrong; I am now told that I got it right.

---