| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:
- Page 3, line 38, leave out "on grounds relating to"
- Page 3, line 40, at beginning insert "in"
- Page 3, line 41, at beginning insert "in"
- Page 3, line 43, leave out "another matter" and insert "for another reason"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 79:
- Page 3, line 44, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 46 and insert "shall have a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal within 28 days"
Lord Kingsland: Most telegraphically, our Amendment No. 80 is grouped with this amendment. It seeks to widen the scope of the appeal to the IAT by excluding the limit of the appeal to an appeal on a point of law only; in other words, it seeks to clarify the scope of the appeal rights.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Presently, a person against whom it is proposed to make a deprivation order has the right to have his case referred to a committee of inquiry. The committee is appointed by the Secretary of State, and its findings are not binding upon him. Under proposed Section 40A, to be inserted by Clause 4, a right of appeal against deprivation—replacing the existing inquiry procedure—will lie either to an adjudicator in the first instance, or, where sensitive information might otherwise be disclosed, to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The proposed Section 40A(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 would mirror the provisions in Clause 89 of the Bill, which place certain limitations on the right of appeal to the tribunal in immigration and asylum cases. An appeal may be brought only with the tribunal's permissions, and can be made only on a point of law. The wider merits of the Secretary of State's decision are for adjudication at an earlier stage by an immigration adjudicator. The appellant will, therefore, already have had a substantive appeal hearing on both fact and law before an adjudicator. It is the intention that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should be able to focus just on whether the adjudicator's determination gives rise to a point of law. We believe that that is a better use of judicial resources in a two-tier legal system.
The removal of the restriction that the appeal to the second appeal tier must be on a point of law only is in conflict with the report on the review of tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt. The purpose of the requirement that the tribunal's permission must be obtained before bringing an appeal against the adjudicator's determination is to avoid unmeritorious appeals coming before the tribunal.
Experience of the operation of the present immigration appeals machinery does not suggest that those procedural requirements conspire to deny justice to those seeking to exercise their appeal rights. Rather, the effect is to improve the efficiency of the system by ensuring that those with genuine and well-founded objections to decisions taken by the Secretary of State are able to have their appeals considered without undue delay. We have no reason to suppose that the same would not be true for appeals against deprivation
of citizenship, although, as we have repeatedly emphasised, such deprivation is likely to continue to be a rare event. I hope that my explanation will prove to be helpful to noble Lords.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 85:
- Page 4, line 12, leave out "2(2A)" and insert "2B"
- Page 4, line 23, leave out "after section 2(2)" and insert "before section 3"
- Page 4, line 24, at end insert ": bail)—"
- Page 4, line 25, leave out ""(2A)" and insert ""2B"
- Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Resumption of citizenship]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may make a few brief remarks on Clause 5, which deals with the resumption of citizenship. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, if he is to reply, for not having given notice of this question. However, it is a matter that I became seized of only this afternoon. The review of "full capacity" being undertaken by the Government that occurs under Section 13 of the British Nationality Act 1981 has not been completed.
In his letter to Tony Colman in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, goes on to say to the honourable Member for Putney:
I shall briefly explain the circumstances that led the honourable Member for Putney to raise the point. He had a constituent whose son was mentally ill and who made a declaration of renunciation of citizenship,
That matter was being dealt with by the Home Office in its review of the full capacity requirement. I am disappointed that the review was not completed as part of the study of this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with the matter—if not now, on Report—so that, if necessary, we can table an amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful for that full explanation. I cannot deal with the issue at the moment, and I apologise for that. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord before Report, so that he has an opportunity to consider his position in the light of my reply.
Clause 6 [Nationality decision: discrimination]:
Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 86:
The noble Lord said: This is the perennial problem with race relations legislation and the matter of immigration and nationality functions.
We welcome the clause, in general, as it removes the exemption of the exercise of nationality functions from the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. The exemption for immigration functions remains in place. The amendment would change that. Why should immigration be exempt from the standards imposed by the 1976 Act?
We had some correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the matter of Zimbabwe. In his response, he stated that no discrimination was made between white and black Zimbabweans. Would not making immigration subject to the 1976 Act provide a legal safeguard?
The amendment has the support of the Mayor for London, despite his recent difficulties. I hope that the Minister will consider removing such an anomaly from race relations legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 6 repeals provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which exempt discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin in the carrying out of functions under nationality legislation from the general prohibition on such discrimination by public authorities. As the Race Relations Act stands, it would be open to Ministers to make a written authorisation for citizenship applicants from certain countries to be singled out for treatment different from that of applicants from other countries. The ability to discriminate in that way was originally thought to be useful, for example in the detection of forgery and fraud. In fact, no use has ever been made of it, and we are satisfied that it can safely be removed.
The clause would leave intact a similar provision that allows discrimination, if authorised by a Minister, in the carrying out of functions under immigration legislation. It is essential to retain the latter provision because the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has a continuing need to prioritise—under close ministerial supervision—the management of its business on the basis of nationality and sometimes of ethnic or national origin. Current ministerial authorisations cover matters such as the examination of arriving passengers at ports of entry, the management of asylum casework and expert language analysis of certain asylum seekers if there are doubts about the applicant's true nationality. Removal of the facility could lead to massive delays at ports of entry and a rigid, inflexible, unmanageable asylum system.
The need for the immigration authorities to be able to discriminate where authorised by Ministers in accordance with public instructions was extensively debated by the House during the passage of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Act creates the post of independent race monitor to monitor the likely effects and practical operation of ministerial authorisations and to make an annual report to Parliament, providing clear public accountability over the exercise of these tentative but necessary powers.
Mary Coussey was appointed as race monitor in April this year and her first report is expected in the autumn. It is important to bear in mind that all applications for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom continue to be determined on their individual merits in accordance with the Immigration Rules and our international obligations. The current ministerial authorisations simply enable the immigration authorities to use their limited resources sensibly to manage the system and to confront the activities of people smugglers and traffickers.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
"(3) In section 5(1)(a) and (b) and (2) of that Act (procedure) after "section 2" there shall be inserted "or 2B"."
"We were hoping to be in a position to announce our conclusions on the review of the full capacity requirement by the end of last year but work on nationality reforms already identified as requiring legislation has had to take precedence".
I do not understand that answer. I should have thought that it would be necessary to review the full capacity requirement under Section 13 of the 1981 Act, which deals with resumption, so that any conclusions reached could have been reflected in the text of this Bill.
"Although you say the forthcoming Bill ought to deal with the issue of full capacity, it seems unlikely that our review will lead us to the conclusion that legislation is the best way in which to resolve the (sometimes conflicting) concerns which have been expressed".
That means that he has a way other than legislation in which the difficulties that have been raised about the full capacity requirement can be dealt with. I would like to know what that is.
Page 4, line 40, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 41 and insert "leave out "immigration and nationality functions""
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page