My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her remarks; I agree with much of what she said.
I will confine myself to dealing with the SI before us, notwithstanding what many of us thought about the Nationality and Borders Act. As the Minister told us in his helpful introduction, the SI makes two required amendments to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission after the introduction of the Nationality and Borders Act. They are two amendments which many of us sought to introduce. We all support keeping our nation safe, but as a democracy, even in circumstances of national security, safeguards need to be built in. We all agree that citizenship is a privilege and a right, but in depriving someone of their citizenship, some checks are needed, to say the least. We therefore welcome the changes to the process, although I may have comments about how we actually got here.
The amendment requiring the Secretary of State to make an application to SIAC when making an order to deprive someone of their citizenship is important and welcome. That application must include an explanation as to why it is necessary for that order to be made without providing notice to the individual, and SIAC will then be required to determine whether the Secretary of State’s view is “obviously flawed”.
I have some questions for the Minister. What does “obviously flawed” mean? Can he give an example of what is meant by that? Can the Minister say who can advise the Minister that such a deprivation of citizenship is necessary? Is it only the Home Secretary who can apply to SIAC, or can the Foreign Secretary, for instance, do it? I think that I know the answer, but, as I mentioned to the Minister outside the Grand Committee, it is sometimes necessary to put those things on the record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to, are such applications made public in any way, either when they are made, or during or after any SIAC determination?
4.30 pm
Can the Minister also confirm that the only way for anyone to provide any evidence or papers to that body is not in person or by video but only on paper? Can he confirm whether legal aid is available to such individuals, and will any provision of the National Security Bill change any of that? Does any individual have a right of appeal or do all have a right of appeal, and if they do, who is the right of appeal to?
Can the Minister comment—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made this point—on how SIAC was given 14 days to make a determination? What account was taken of the complexity of some of the potential cases and the gravity of the decision? No
answer was given when I read the Hansard of the debate in the other place, so how was that timeframe of 14 days agreed, why was it regarded as appropriate, and what criteria were used to say that it was the right length?
Can the Minister also explain why in Rule 25B(3), which relates to the information laid out in Rule 25B(2), if you do not know any of that information, you do not have to provide it? Included in that list of information to be provided is the person’s nationality or nationalities, but according to Rule 25B(3) you do not have to provide that in any application. How can you have a hearing to deprive someone of their citizenship if you do not know what it is? I gave the Minister warning of that question. There may be a simple answer to it that has completely evaded me, but if so, it would be quite useful for us to understand what that means.
Under Rule 15, Rule 47 is amended, and we have the amendment before us. That refers to Section 22 of the Nationality and Borders Act—in other words, the late provision of information. In Section 22(4), a PRN recipient’s credibility is damaged if material is provided late—as I understand it, that is replicated in the SI. However, also in that amendment, a provision says that if there is good reason for that late provision, that can be taken into account and not be used to damage the credibility of the person who is appearing before the commission or giving evidence. Does that “for good reason” still apply to the SIAC? In other words, if you have a very good reason for not being able to get something to the commission, your credibility is not damaged if you have a good reason. That is in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022; does it apply to these processes?
Notwithstanding those questions, we support the amendments that have been made—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we might not be particularly pleased with how we got here but they are safeguards that were put into the Bill on amendment and they are now being taken forward with this SI. Some important points of clarification and detail are needed, in answer both to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to some of mine. However, as far as it goes, we welcome the two amendments in the SI.