Nationality & Borders Bill, Part 1 Clause 9 ‘deprivation of nationality’ & Clause 10 ‘stateless minors’ Briefing for House of Lords Committee Stage, 27 January 2022 Introduction The European Network on Statelessness (ENS) is a civil society alliance of over 170 members in 41 European countries, including 44 associate members in the UK. We are committed to ending statelessness and ensuring that everyone living in Europe without a nationality can access the rights they are entitled to under international law. This briefing concerns Clause 9 ‘deprivation of citizenship’ and Clause 10 ‘stateless minors’ of Part 1 (Nationality) of the Nationality & Borders Bill (NBB). We have serious concerns that the changes proposed in Clauses 9 and 10 are contrary to the letter and spirit of international law, will risk increasing statelessness in the UK, and will unnecessarily leave more children in limbo, exposed to the detrimental impacts of growing up without a nationality. Clause 9 ‘deprivation of citizenship’ What is wrong with Clause 9? Clause 9 of the NBB seeks to amend section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA), to allow the Secretary of State to deprive a person of their nationality without giving them notice. The circumstances in which this would be permissible are extremely broad and provide an extensive margin of discretion to the Home Secretary to strip a person of British citizenship in secret. This has severe consequences for the exercise of an effective right of appeal, which is an essential safeguard to prevent statelessness, both for the person concerned and their children. States must conduct a thorough assessment of the consequences of deprivation of nationality for the individual and must take into account whether they would be rendered stateless or at risk of statelessness by the deprivation. Without prior notification, a person would be unable to demonstrate that they do not hold another nationality and should therefore not be deprived of nationality as it would render them stateless. After the deprivation order, a person who has not been notified of that decision would be unable to effectively challenge the deprivation decision, as well as to take any steps required to acquire or retain another nationality they may be entitled to. The assessment of the consequences of a deprivation order should also take into account the direct or indirect derivative impact on children and families of the person deprived of nationality. Clause 9 will therefore also increase the risk of children being born stateless, if one of their parents is no longer able to pass on British citizenship and the child is not entitled to any other nationality. The power to deprive individuals of their nationality already disproportionately impacts on minoritized communities, and the expansion of these powers would only contribute to further discrimination. Clause 9, as proposed, will have severe impacts on the rule of law and on a person’s fundamental rights, and disregards many of the UK’s international obligations, including the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the obligation to avoid statelessness, and the right to a fair hearing. The UK Government has not provided any justification as to why such a restriction on fundamental rights is needed. Recommendation: remove Clause 9 from the Bill We strongly support the removal of Clause 9 from the Bill and, to this end, the amendment of Lord Anderson and others giving notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill.