The government’s Nationality & Borders Bill has been defeated in the House of Lords for a second time, with the government facing opposition to 12 of its proposals to tighten immigration laws.
The Bill would give UK authorities the power to remove an individual’s British citizenship without warning, something which ethnic minority communities fear could render them “second-class citizens”.
The government suffered a string of defeats on the Bill in the House of Lords back in March but won a series of votes on the legislation in the Commons last week. This saw the Bill go back before the Lords on Monday for consideration.
However, after returning to the upper chamber, peers rebuffed the Bill for a second time.
Major bones of contention proved to be government plans to separately categorise refugees according to their manner of arrival in the UK; the right for asylum seekers to work in the event their case is not resolved within six months; a requirement for formal returns agreements with third states to ensure individuals are deported and returned safely; and provisions for unaccompanied children in Europe seeking asylum to be able to legally join family members in the UK.
After suffering 12 defeats, the only vote to go in the government’s favour was over whether the best interests of a child ought to be the “primary consideration” in final decisions about individuals under the age of 18.
The legislation now returns to the Commons on April 20 following the Easter break.
Ministers already have the power to remove the UK citizenship of individuals if they pose a threat to national security or the move is deemed to be “in the public interest”, with the home secretary making a final decision on each individual case.
While the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the right of all to a nationality, the government believes UK citizenship can be revoked without notice in appropriate circumstances should the individual concerned have dual nationality or can easily acquire citizenship of another country.
Home secretary Priti Patel argues that the move will help protect the UK from individuals who pose risks to national security, stressing that the powers would only be invoked in “exceptional circumstances”.
However, peers deemed that the provision for government not to have to inform individuals before revoking their citizenship was unacceptable, with Lords crossbencher Baroness D’Souza [pictured] calling the idea “unjust”.
D’Souza said that she was not against deprivation orders being issued where necessary but insisted that “proper safeguards” had to be in place for individuals “who continue to be at risk from previous unlawful actions”.
She also called it a “legal fiction” that deprivation orders issued without notice should “continue to be valid” after the courts ruled against it.
D’Souza’s subsequent amendment to the Bill was passed by peers by a majority of 44 [209 votes to 165], seeing the government’s efforts to change immigration law once more frustrated.
With weeks remaining of the current parliamentary session, ministers will be forced to weigh up the prospect of further compromises to ensure the Bill is passed in time.
Image taken from Wikimedia Commons
