Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, the current wording that we have in our law follows that of the European Convention on Nationality 1997. The case for widening the power of deprivation so that it can be exercised when the Secretary of State considers it would be conducive to the public good has not been made out. The proposed test is one which has been used to deport or exclude foreign nationals since the Immigration Act 1971. The Government are equating migration control with deprivation of citizenship. We think these things are completely different. The Minister said various things in Grand Committee and on Report about the new test. In Grand Committee she said,"““it is fundamentally wrong for those who engage in such activities””—" meaning the ““unacceptable behaviours”” which has now been covered by the amendment—"““““and who have rights of residence elsewhere to be allowed to acquire and shelter behind their British citizenship””.—[Official Report, 19/1/06; col. GC 274.]" We are talking not about acquisition but about people who are existing dual nationals who have been deprived of their British nationality. The Minister also said of this provision that it was intended for use against Abu Hamza and how bad cases make bad law. Abu Hamza, who is a dual British/Jordanian citizen, was gaoled in February for seven years for inciting to murder and racial hatred, and is wanted on charges of trying to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon. On 19 January in Grand Committee the Minister referred to the effect of this clause on Abu Hamza before he was convicted. However, the Companion makes it clear that the sub judice rule would have applied equally if it had been after his conviction while he still had a right of appeal. I have been personally warned in writing by the Clerks not to refer to a particular case under consideration by the courts, so I wonder whether the Minister sought the leave of the Leader of the House to refer to Abu Hamza under paragraph 4.58 of the Companion or how otherwise she justifies the reference she made to that particular case. Perhaps I may leave that and make a general comment. First, when a person has been convicted of a very serious offence and an extradition warrant in another jurisdiction has been issued against him, is it a matter of immediate concern whether by depriving him of his citizenship we can send him back to his country of origin? Secondly, if incitement to murder and to racial hatred is not contrary to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, then what is? The use of this wording has never been tested in the courts, but the Minister has said that she knows of cases where the behaviour of dual citizens is not a danger to the United Kingdom, but is nevertheless completely unacceptable. In other words, the Government would interpret the power in new Section 42 as allowing them to deprive someone of his British citizenship on a subjective assessment of his behaviour, whether criminal or not. That is indeed how they have always used the powers to deport under Section 3(5) of the 1971 Act. A person I know was arrested on terrorist charges in September 1985 and was acquitted after two trials and 15 months in custody. He was then deported in December 1986 using the 1971 Act powers. We do not want that type of kangaroo justice extended into the area of citizenship.