Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal.
During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals.
Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'.
Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens.
'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.'
Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government.
'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.'
Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.'
He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.'
The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order.
It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.
Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them.
'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation.
'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked.
'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.'
The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.'
At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good.
'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.'
'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
18 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What the Bell Hotel closure reveals about the asylum housing stalemate
Photo byThe Bell Hotel must oust its asylum seekers within 28 days. A High Court judge has ruled in favour of Epping Forest District Council's request to stop asylum seekers being housed at the local hotel – a site of numerous recent protests, one of which turned violent, since a resident was charged with sexual assault. The Home Office's last-minute attempt to have the case dismissed failed. It had warned that the decision would 'substantially impact' its ability to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels. Whether this is a victory for mob rule and the far right or planning regulation and nimbys, it reveals the true extent of government impotence. The Home Office has a duty to avoid destitution – it cannot empty the hotels until there are enough houses available to shelter asylum seekers. This dispersal strategy is currently underway with the likes of Serco contracted by the government to offer dreamy deals to landlords to convert their properties into houses of multiple occupancy to house asylum seekers. But these, too, will bring the same tense dynamics of the hotels. They already draw local complaint and unease – and pressure on councils to regulate against them. While Labour ministers have made repeated promises to close the asylum hotels, and are vocally opposed to the policy – introduced by the Conservatives when the pandemic hit in 2020 – cases such as the Bell Hotel reveal how the Home Office has to fight to keep them open. 'Do you think anyone wanted to house asylum seekers in hotels?' as one despairing minister put it. The government is stuck in asylum hotel California. It can check out of the policy any time it likes, but it can never leave. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related
South Wales Guardian
20 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Ministers braced for further legal challenges after High Court Epping decision
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage hailed the High Court decision in Epping as a 'victory' and said he hopes it 'provides inspiration to others across the country', while the shadow home secretary argued that residents have 'every right to object' to people being housed in their area. The 12 councils where Reform UK is the largest party are understood to be exploring the prospect of legal challenges following Tuesday's ruling. The Home Office had warned the judge that an injunction could 'interfere' with the department's legal obligations, and lawyers representing the hotel's owner argued it would set a 'precedent'. Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Reacting to the news, Mr Farage said that 'young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should NOT be free to walk the streets anywhere. They must be detained and deported'. 'I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country,' he said. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that the migrants housed at the hotel 'need to be moved out of the area immediately', while her shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that 'residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town'. He said: 'Local residents have every right to feel safe in their own streets and every right to object when their community is treated as a dumping ground.' A Labour source said the move by the Tory-led council, who did not challenge the Conservative government when they were housing asylum seekers, was politically motivated and authority leaders were 'scared' of Reform. Asked on Tuesday why the council did not previously take legal action, Epping Forest District Council leader Chris Whitbread told the PA news agency: 'It goes back to 2020 when we were in the pandemic originally, and at that time, it was used for young families, women and children, which is completely different to having it used for single males. 'Obviously, we have always raised our concerns with the Home Office, whether it be the previous government or this government, we raised our concerns.' Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the Government will 'continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns'. She added: 'Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.' Meanwhile, the council leader for Borough of Broxbourne Council, Corina Gander, told PA the High Court's injunction set a 'massive precedent' and the council would gather 'more detail about what Epping has done' before considering a bid to shut down another hotel housing asylum seekers. Lawyers for the Home Office had warned the court that an injunction 'runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. Edward Brown KC also said the injunction would 'substantially interfere' with the Home Office's statutory duty in potentially avoiding a breach of the asylum seekers' human rights. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels Limited, the hotel's owner, the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. Piers Riley-Smith, for the company, asked the judge to be allowed to appeal against the ruling, citing its 'wide-reaching ramifications'. He said that there was a 'compelling reason for the appeal to be heard', including the 'precedent that would be set' by the ruling and the impact that it could have 'on the wider strategy of the (Home Secretary) in relation to the housing of asylum seekers in hotels as part of meeting their statutory duties'.
Rhyl Journal
20 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
How people in Epping reacted to closure of migrant hotel
Epping Forest District Council was granted a temporary High Court injunction on Tuesday blocking asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, a then-resident at the hotel, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl, which he denies. Following the decision on Tuesday, a crowd of about a dozen people gathered outside the hotel brandishing flags, shouting 'We've won' and popping sparkling wine, while passing traffic honked their horns at them. A few police cars were parked nearby with officers standing outside the hotel, which is fenced in. Other residents gave a mixed reaction to the injunction, with some saying they were glad to 'see it gone'. But others cited concerns about where the asylum seekers currently housed inside the hotel would be moved to in light of the court's decision. Callum Barker, 21, a construction worker who lives next to the hotel, was handing out leaflets at the protest including the names of three men staying at the Bell Hotel who are alleged to have committed criminal offences. He said he was in favour of the injunction. Mr Barker told the PA news agency: 'Our community's in danger and we don't want these people here. 'I'm ecstatic; I haven't stopped smiling. For five years, this hotel's blighted us. Everyone's had their complaints and reservations about it and I'm really glad to see it gone. 'I think nationally there will be more protests; I hope so. We want people to get out into their communities, get rid of these hotels. 'It's not right they're here on taxpayers' dime while British people struggle. 'They get three meals a day and a roof over their head while kids go hungry in school and have to rely on free dinners and I think it's terrible. The asylum system is broken.' In the town centre, Charlotte, 33, a solicitor living in Epping, said: 'I think it's kicking the can down the road because where are they going to go? 'Personally, I have lived here for four years and I've never had an issue, never noticed any problems with any asylum seekers living in the hotel a mile away. 'With the injunction today, I don't know what the long-term solution is going to be because they have to be housed somewhere so what's the alternative? 'I don't partake in (the protests). I think people are allowed to have a right of free speech but what annoys me about them is I'm on community groups on Facebook and it seems if you're not speaking about it you're presumed to be completely for it when I think a lot of people are in the middle. 'There are extremists at these protests every week.' Michael Barnes, 61, a former carpenter from Epping, said he was happy about the High Court's decision. He said: 'The question is, where does it go from here? I don't love them on my doorstep but, in fairness, they've got to live somewhere. 'I don't think it's all of them, it's just the minority of them that get up to no good.' Gary Crump, 63, a self-employed lift consultant living just outside of Epping, said: 'I was quite pleased it's actually happened. 'I don't think they should be housed in the hotels like they are. 'We haven't got the infrastructure here. The doctors' surgery is filled up in the mornings with people from there with translators. Everything is pushing the limits. We're an island. We're full. 'I've got no reason to be against people coming into the UK but I do think that the reasons given are not true in a lot of cases.' Ryan Martin, 39, who runs a natural health business, said: 'It's a good thing. When people spend a lot of money to live in this area, they want to feel safe. 'Them shutting it down probably happened because of the noise that was made about it and the reaction they saw from people because there was a strong reaction. 'It was taking a while to happen but people finally got up to protest against them being here.'
