Today during a House of Lords Second Reading debate on the Borders and Nationality Bill I said we had an opportunity to put right long standing wrongs – not to introduce unjust and counterproductive measures.
Forty years ago during consideration of the 1981 British Nationality Act I raised concerns about its impact on what it might mean to be a British citizen, the importance of ensuring that we did not exclude legitimate claims to citizenship – especially children – and our failure to treat citizens in overseas territories such as the Falklands and Hong Kong equitably.
I worried that the 1981 provision would cause “suffering and confusion”, lead to challenges in the Courts and have “damaging effects”… “on good race relations.”
Last year in a High Court case involving the rights of citizenship derived from that Act I gave a witness statement and will look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government has pursued their appeal to the Supreme Court rather than accepting that £1,012 for a child to registered as a British citizen which as Sajid Javid has rightly said is “a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.
This Bill is an opportunity to right that longstanding wrong.
In 1981 I also challenged the failure to honour our relationship with the people of Hong Kong:
“…they are now third-class citizens or, more crudely, as suggested by commentators in Hong Kong and elsewhere, sheep, goats, and more goats.”
Forty years later – and here I declare an interest as a Patron of Hong Kong Watch and Vice Chair of the APPG on Hong Kong – we have seen the destruction of Hong Kong’s freedoms.
I warmly welcome what the Government have done for BNO holders – but hope that they will also use this Bill to do two things – both raised here and in Another Place.
Firstly, to address the right to full citizenship of Hong Kong ex-servicemen – raised on the Armed Forces Bill by Lord Craig of Radley and myself and in the Commons in an amendment by Andrew Rosindell MP.
And secondly, tell us how they intend to take forward the proposal of Damian Green MP to address the position of young Hong Kongers born after 1997 who are not eligible for the BNO scheme unless they apply together with their BNO-status parents.
As Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, said last week: “Many of Beijing’s administration in Hong Kong, for example the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary, have ensured that members of their own families have British citizenship. It would be an appalling irony if we allow the families of representatives of the Beijing regime in Hong Kong the right of abode in Britain, while not allowing the right of abode for those persecuted by self-serving United Front activists whose record will drown in infamy.”
This too is a wrong which needs to be put right.
My third concern – and I declare an interest as a Trustee of the charity, Arise –is about Part 5 of the Bill and its impact on combatting modern slavery.
15 NGOs have called on the Government to remove Part 5 from the Bill. Others, including the Independent Ant-Slavery Commissioner, ECPAT, the Children’s Society, senior police officers and prosecutors have also expressed alarm that these new provisions will create a fertile environment for those responsible for trafficking and enslavement.
Issues concerning Modern Slavery should not have been put in a Bill primarily about immigration – a point reenforced by the Commons Work and Pensions Committee report on modern slavery.
The Minister will have read the speech of Sir Ian Duncan Smith and the intervention of Teresa May – the architect of this world class legislation.
Teresa May told the Commons: “If we are to stop modern slaver, we must ensure that we catch the perpetrators, which requires victims to be able to come forward with evidence.” She identified that the public order disqualification threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices will have that effect. Does the Minister agree?
Sir Iain did not press his amendment but said we might well do so and asked the Government to offer progress to avoid that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how he intends to address that.
Beyond amendments on citizenship fees, Hong Kong and modern slavery, the Bill presents a host of other contentious and contested issues.
This House cannot simply give the green light to a Bill which has been found to be defective by our Joint Committee on Human Rights and the UNHCR warning that this Bill “would deny recognised refugees the rights that are guaranteed to them under the Refugees Convention and International law
We have a duty to diligently scrutinise and amend this legislation.
