|
Dr. Harris: I understand what the Minister is saying, but I am now confused. I argued that section 4(4) of the 2002 Act contained safeguards against retrospectivity. If he is applying the same approach that has always been applied before, I should be grateful if he would let me know—not now, if he is not able to—why that was there and why he is not proposing to reproduce it in this provision.
10.15 am
Mr. McNulty: I am happy to provide that clarification. I could do it now, but perhaps it will be better to do so in writing for the purposes of cross-referencing between the Acts. The new power is about it now being conducive to deprive—conducive, that is, at the point of decision, rather than in any retrospective sense. However, I must add the rider that past behaviour and a propensity to repeat it would come in.
Given that the appeal mechanisms are still in place and that the Secretary of State will have to defend his decisions on appeal, the decision to deprive will have to be based on fairly robust evidence. That excludes the point, raised by the hon. Member for Woking, that the decision might be based purely on uncorroborated evidence from a foreign state.
As Lord Filkin said, we shall not use the powers to export risk; we need to do far more than that. Last night, the Home Secretary was clear that there is an increasingly international dimension to our response to such matters, and that means co-operation. There is a right of appeal to the asylum and immigration tribunal on the right to abode, but there is a caveat that it might have to be heard instead at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The point about the anomaly of those with dual nationality is well made and may be explored in the international domain. However, if citizens of some countries take British citizenship, they have to lose their existing citizenship, and we have to weigh that against our responsibilities on statelessness; the two
Column Number: 272
must run together. Not every country takes citizenship away because of the use of British citizenship, but I fully accept that some—in the subcontinent and elsewhere—do, and in those circumstances we have to invoke the point about statelessness. That others might determine at least part of our own control on this issue might seem perverse, but that is the way of it. The point about statelessness is very strong.
I accept that some of the matters that I have discussed are evolving, but I ask that the amendments be withdrawn.
Dr. Harris: I should be grateful if the Minister would address the issue of the ratification of the 1997 convention and say whether there are any relevant implications. I should also like to check one other point, and I hope to catch your eye, Sir Nicholas, to intervene and do that.
Mr. McNulty: From memory, about a dozen countries have ratified, so the convention is by no means well on the way to full ratification. We have not yet ratified and we shall have to reflect, in the light of all the nationality legislation in this Bill, on whether it will be possible to do so. There may be a reservation in respect of our powers of deprivation. There may well be scope to ratify, but we shall have to look. Since 1997, there has been a recognition, Europe-wide—certainly on the part of an advisory body to the Council of Europe—that there is a fluidity to all these matters that may have gone beyond where the convention was in 1997.
Dr. Harris: I see the Minister's point. Earlier, I made the point that there is no longer alignment with the convention. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer my fundamental question: is the intention in the clause to deprive people of their citizenship for acts that are not seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK? There appears to be a mismatch and there is the implication of the wider test of not being conducive.
Mr. McNulty: That is a fair question, and my answer is that I do not think so. We shall come to the issue when we consider the refugee convention. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the assorted UN, rather than European, conventions, I have passed on material to Committee members that puts the more modern language of the UN on such matters into the wider context of terrorism. We have tried to reflect that in the new clauses. We are still with the spirit and the grain of the United Nations.
Mr. Malins: The Minister has kindly dealt with most of the issues that I have raised. If there are some with which he has not dealt—I am not sure whether there are—will he drop me a note about them?
Mr. McNulty: ''Life is full of rich ironies'' was to be my closing line before we discuss our next amendments. However, if there are matters that I have not dealt with, I shall happily get back to the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 273
Clause 48
Extent
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in clause 48, page 25, line 29, leave out
'(or as the relevant part of that Act),'
and insert
'or as the relevant part of that Act (ignoring extent by virtue of an Order in Council),'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 54.
Mr. McNulty: The amendment extends the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man at an appropriate time in the future. Negotiations with the relevant authorities will remain ongoing, but the provision is necessary so that, when they are completed, the Bill will be extended to those geographical areas.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 54, in clause 48, page 25, line 32, at end insert—
'(3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that a provision of this Act is to extend, with or without modification or adaptation, to—
(a) any of the Channel Islands;
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the extension to a place of a provision which extends there by virtue of subsection (2)(b).'.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New clause 1
Asylum and human rights claims: definition
'(1) Section 113(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals: interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For the definition of ''asylum claim'' substitute—
(a) means a claim made by a person that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would breach
Column Number: 274
the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention, but
(b) does not include a claim which, having regard to a former claim, falls to be disregarded for the purposes of this Part in accordance with immigration rules,''.
(3) For the definition of ''human rights claim'' substitute—
'' ''human rights claim''—
(c) means a claim made by a person that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42) (public authority not to act contrary to Convention) as being incompatible with his Convention rights, but
(d) does not include a claim which, having regard to a former claim, falls to be disregarded for the purposes of this Part in accordance with immigration rules,''.''.—[Mr. McNulty.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. McNulty: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause amends section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. In particular, it amends the definitions of ''asylum claim'' and ''human rights claim'' under part 5 of the 2002 Act to remove the requirement to claim in person at a place designated by the Secretary of State. To ensure that the United Kingdom provides protection when it is genuinely needed, it is important that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal should be able to consider any human rights or asylum issues raised by appellants. It is therefore unhelpful for definitions under section 113 to refer to procedural restrictions that are not relevant in that context.
It must, however, be stressed that the changes in no way alter the general requirement that asylum and human rights claims must be made in person. To that end, clause 42 will in future allow the procedures to be set out under immigration rules. That will allow us to maintain a fair and flexible system by which such claims must be made.
It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at One o'clock.
| 
