The Home Secretary’s proposed expansion to controversial citizenship-stripping powers has encountered mounting opposition in the House of Lords.
Some of the most prominent lawyers in the Lords — including a former Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Supreme Court judge — have joined forces to table an amendment that would force the government to submit its plans to extra scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the government has again refused to provide information to a parliamentary committee on how the current powers are used.
The Immigration Bill contains a clause allowing the Home Secretary to revoke the British nationality of people she believes pose a risk to the country, even if it makes them stateless. Under current laws, she can only act if the individual holds another nationality and so will not be left stateless.
The government argues that the proposal is essential for protecting national security. The clause was introduced at the last minute of the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons, and it passed with a huge majority.
But in the House of Lords, the clause has become one of the Bill’s most controversial aspects. Peers expressed profound concerns with its potential consequences.
‘The United Kingdom has no right and no power to require any other state to accept its outcasts and, as a matter of international law, it will be obliged to readmit them if no other state is prepared to allow them to remain,’ said Baroness Kennedy QC, who represents former British citizen Mahdi Hashi in his appeal against the loss of his citizenship.
‘Moreover, deprivation of citizenship is not a viable alternative to the responsible prosecution of alleged criminal conduct. Citizenship is not a privilege, but a protected legal status,’ she added.
Home Office minister Lord Taylor agreed to meet with peers to discuss their misgivings.
But as the Bill reaches report stage, crossbencher Lord Pannick QC has tabled a new amendment calling for the proposed expansion of citizenship-stripping powers to be delayed until it has been scrutinised by a committee of both peers and MPs.
Pannick told the Bureau: ‘The minister has been made aware of our concerns about the Clause. As yet, we have had no response which meets those concerns. The amendment seems the best way of addressing the concerns.’
The amendment is co-signed by Lord Macdonald of River Glen, a Liberal Democrat peer and former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, a crossbencher and former Supreme Court judge who served for years on the government’s intelligence watchdogs. The Bill also has Labour backing — Baroness Smith of Basildon, the opposition home affairs spokeswoman, is a fellow co-signatory.