Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, with his usual thoroughness, has put the case so well that it is difficult to add anything. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously what is proposed in the amendment and, more importantly, the reasons why the amendment has been tabled. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee was profoundly disturbed by the implications of this part of the proposed legislation. I felt it would be quite wrong not to be present—if I was able—to emphasise how strongly we, in the committee, had felt. It would be tedious to repeat all that is there for everyone to read. I am sure that the Government have studied very closely the rationale and the findings of the committee. Perhaps I can underline why I, as a member of that committee, so strongly supported what we were saying in the committee. First, on citizenship, I cannot remember a time in my soon to be 30 years in Parliament, in one way or another, when we gave so much attention to the importance of citizenship and advancing the whole concept of tests of commitment to citizenship. The important point about commitment is that it is a two-way business, and if we are asking people to take their citizenship as seriously as I believe that they should take it, that puts a balancing responsibility on government to take the principles of citizenship equally seriously. Therefore, it is almost impossible to overstate the significance of removing citizenship. That is the first point that I wanted to make. I am not arguing that in all circumstances citizenship should not be removed; but I am arguing that it is not only a serious but a grave matter. It is impossible to underline how important it is, especially if we are serious in what we are saying about what people must undertake as their position to enjoy citizenship. The second point that I want to make is that all this is discussed in the Terrorism Bill, and the overlapping between the two Bills is very important. I was a bit amazed that this Committee was going on at the same time as we were discussing the Terrorism Bill in the other Chamber—that was an extraordinary piece of parliamentary mismanagement, if I may say so. But in that context, this Bill obviously relates closely to our concerns about terrorism. If we are to win the battle against terrorism—and I take second place to nobody in wanting to win that battle—I believe that we all really know that, ultimately, victory lies in hearts and minds. We have to win people to a position in which they want to identify with the existing order and are not easy prey for those who want to recruit them to extreme action. That means that in our administration of the law we must painstakingly demonstrate the rationale, the significance, the objectivity and the transparency of what we are doing, as far as we possibly can. We all understand the difficulties, but we must do that as far as we possibly can. From what we said in the Select Committee it is quite clear that we do not believe that the Bill, as drafted, meets that requirement. Precision is also terribly important in that context; generalised principles are not enough; we need to be very clear so that all can understand what is meant—not just so that Ministers can understand what is meant, but so that the ordinary youngster in an ethnic community, under tremendous pressure and turmoil, has a chance instinctively to understand precisely what the provisions of the law are on these matters. That is another reason for our concern. I, for one, took great heart when I read what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said about the remarks of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I hoped that it meant that our arguments were registering. Because I have great respect and—as I hope I am allowed to say in parliamentary proceedings—great affection for some of those involved, I hoped that we would hear something that began to meet our anxieties, as I have described them. I have not yet heard that, but it is not too late, and I hope that we will before we finally decide to make up our minds on the final form of the Bill. I hope that we find that the Government have understood why the Joint Committee on Human Rights took the position that it did and have decided to introduce precision and greater transparency to meet those arguments.