By Jacqueline Farmer, NCADC legal volunteer. See our previous posts on the Immigration Bill - it’s our pet hate (well, one of them).
Second reading at the House of Lords
Yesterday the second reading of the Immigration Bill took place at the House of Lords. This was an opportunity for the Lords to debate the purposes and principles of the Bill, or to highlight specific concerns and suggest what kinds of changes might be needed.
In order to reach this stage in the legislative proceedings, a bill has get through the House of Commons. Following the first two readings of the Bill, the detailed examination during the committee stage and the consideration of amendments during the report stage, there is a third reading in the House of Commons. This is a final chance for debate at the House of Commons.
Article 8, ex-offenders and “Tory rebels”
The third reading of the Bill took place on 30 January 2014. Rather than focussing on the threats to human rights already present in the Bill, most media attention has been drawn to the amendment tabled by Conservative MP Dominic Raab to the effect that ex-offenders could be deported with no consideration of their right to family life, which is protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 8 can be relied on in some immigration cases where success can be achieved by showing strong enough family or private ties in the UK, so that a person is unable to be deported even if their claim might have been otherwise unsuccessful. The importance of allowing people to remain with their loved ones should not be dismissed, but the Immigration Bill advises judges to give “little weight” to Article 8 when deciding immigration cases.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has already been critical of this (as well as many other aspects of the Bill), expressing concern that such a provision inappropriately interferes with judicial functions.
Labour supported the Conservative frontbenchers in pushing the Bill through without Raab’s amendment. Although it would have been terrible if the amendment was passed, it should be borne in mind that the provision, as it is already, is highly concerning.
Revocation of citizenship of terror suspects
On the morning of the third reading at the House of Commons, Home Secretary Theresa May tabled a last minute amendment proposing that the government would have the power to strip terror suspects of citizenship, even where this can result in a person being rendered stateless (that is, they are not a citizen of any country). This extreme measure would not be considered by a Supreme Court or Tribunal, rather the power would be wielded by our Home Secretary.
This amendment was passed by a massive majority of 297 to 34. This has very serious human rights implications given that statelessness people are some of the most vulnerable in the world. There are implications in international law (see these UN instruments relating to statelessness) as well as going against our own case law (most recently the Al Jedda case). To inflict “the evil of statelessness”, in the words of the Supreme Court, on someone who has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing panders to the worst kind of mob instinct, is morally repugnant and legally ambiguous.
Next steps
The Bill will now pass to the committee stage, where detailed examination and discussion of amendments will take place.
Given the disastrous effects this Bill is going to have on migrant rights and race relations in the UK (even more after the most recent amendment) it is important that we continue to follow the progress of the Immigration Bill and campaign against its passing.
You can:
Sign the petition encouraging the House of Lords to amend the Immigration Bill
Join us on 22 March to march against racism and fascism, and send the message that the Hostile Environment is not the world we live in, or want to live in.