Immigration Bill — Clause 60 — Power to Deprive Naturalised Citizen of Citizenship Even If That Would Leave Them Stateless — 7 May 2014 at 16:23
The majority of MPs voted to allow the Secretary of State to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship even if doing so would make them stateless. Such a depreviation of citizenship would only be permitted if the Secretary of State was satisfied that the deprivation was conducive to the public good. The majority of MPs rejected a proposal to take the provisions out of the Bill and refer the matter to a joint committee of members of the House of Commons and House of Lords.
MPs were considering the Immigration Bill. The motion accepted in this vote was:
- That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 18.
The rejected amendment 18 stated:
- Page 47, line 29, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
- “(1) A Committee of members of both Houses of Parliament shall be established to consider and report on whether section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship) should be amended to enable the Secretary of State to deprive a person of their citizenship if—
- (a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and
- (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the islands, or any British Overseas Territory, even if to do so would have the effect of making the person stateless.
- (2) The Committee shall consist of six members of the House of Lords nominated by the Chairman of Committees, and six members of the House of Commons nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons, to be appointed on the passing of this Act to serve for the duration of the present Parliament.
- (3) Any casual vacancy occurring by reason of the death, resignation or incapacity of a member of the committee shall be filled by the nomination of a member by the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as the case may be.
- (4) The quorum of the committee shall be two members of each House and the committee shall be entitled to sit and to transact business whether Parliament be sitting or not, and notwithstanding a vacancy in the membership of the committee.
- (5) Subject to the above provisions, the committee may regulate its own procedure.”
Had the amendment not been rejected the above text would have replaced the content of clause 60 of the Immigration Bill titled "Deprivation if conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK" which amends Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. As it stood The British Nationality Act 1981 enabled the Secretary of State to deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good unless that would make a person stateless.
Clause 60 of the Immigration Bill introduces a provision allowing the Secretary of State to make a naturalised citizen stateless if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good.
The rejected amendment sought to delete the proposed clause 60 which would have introduced the ability to make someone stateless and to instead set up a committee of MPs and Members of the House of Lords to consider the introducing such a provision.
-  Parliament's webpage on the Immigration Bill
-  Lords' Amendments to the Immigration Bill - 9 April 2014
-  Page of Lords' Amendments to the Immigration Bill - 9 April 2014 containing amendment 18
-  Clause 60 of the Immigration Bill on which the amendment would have had effect
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||264 (+1 tell)||2||0||87.8%|
|Lab||0||224 (+2 tell)||0||87.6%|
|LDem||37 (+1 tell)||1||0||69.6%|
|David Davis||Haltemprice and Howden||Con||no|
|Sarah Teather||Brent Central||LDem (front bench)||no|