Clause 9: Priti Patel Faces Backlash Over Nationality And Borders Bill

Priti Patel’s controversial Nationality and Borders Bill was just voted through Parliament – but what does that really mean?

The home secretary has long promised as tougher approach to immigration in the UK, particularly when it comes to people trying to enter the country through the English Channel as crossings have reached an all-time high.

Patel rejected widespread criticism and insisted the government wasn’t “heartless” after 27 people died while trying to reach England via dinghy in November.

The home secretary has continued to press ahead with her new bill, even as it has infuriated some people, proposing to shake up the entire asylum system in the UK. One of her clauses even suggests Downing Street could strip certain people of their UK citizenship without warning.

Here’s everything you need to know about Patel’s bill.

What is the Nationality and Borders Bill?

The bill aims to:

  • Prevent illegal entry to the UK, meaning people can’t come into the country without a visa, in an attempt to scupper criminal trafficking networks.

  • Remove people from the UK if they have no right to be there.

  • Protect those who are in genuine need by creating a new asylum system.

The bill means the UK will be able to send asylum seekers to a “safe third country” and can allow for offshore processing centres overseas. Last month, justice secretary Dominic Raab did not deny that ministers were looking to put people who arrived in the UK from the Channel onto boats to Albania.

Border Force officers can turn people away from the UK while travelling to British land in a boat, without prosecution, too.

The bill also makes it a criminal offence to arrive in the UK without permission.

The maximum sentence for people entering the UK unlawfully will go up to four years if the proposals are passed – the maximum sentence is currently six months.

All of this will work to reduce the so-called “pull factors” of the UK’s asylum system, according to Patel.

People landing on a British beach in November after travelling across the English Channel in a dinghy
People landing on a British beach in November after travelling across the English Channel in a dinghy

Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images

Will the bill be turned into law?

The bill cleared the Commons this week by 298 votes to 231 – meaning it has now gone for a reading in the House of Lords.

It was debated for just nine minutes in the Commons, after deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing accused the opposition MPs of using “delaying tactics”.

However, the bill needs to be read and debated in the House of Lords before it can pass into law.

A total of 88 pages of amendments have been issued along with the bill, which the Lords will consider before sending it back to the Commons.

“This bill represents the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK”

– Human rights group, Freedom From Torture

What is clause 9?

Clause 9 of the bill is causing particular controversy this week as it means six million people with dual nationality, or who were born outside the UK, could be stripped of their British citizenship without fair warning.

At the moment, only those who pose a threat to the UK through either terrorism or war crimes, or if they obtained citizenship fraudulently, can have their citizenship removed.

Clause 9 does not change this – but it does allow citizenship to be removed without notice, if it would “not be reasonably practicable” to tell the individual first in the interests of national security or international relations.

The Home Office has claimed people will only lose their citizenship without notification if someone is in a war zone, or if telling them would reveal sensitive sources.

But clause 9 has drawn some attention this week after Conservative backbencher David Davis dubbed it “uncivilised” and “legally disputable”.

He put forward an amendment so that the home secretary could not deprive someone of their citizenship without notification.

Davis, a Conservative backbencher, said: “Not only are these excessively broad new powers not necessary to tackle terrorism, but they are counter-productive.”

Davis also pointed out that the government’s excuse that it wasn’t practicable to notify people that their citizenship is being taken away, as they only have to post a letter to their last known address.

What are people saying about the bill?

More than 100,000 people have signed a petition to remove clause 9 from the Nationality and Borders Bill, explaining: “We believe this is unacceptable, and inconsistent with international human rights obligations.”

Parliament considers all petitions which get more than 100,000 signatures.

This is what people had to say about it online:

The bill has also caused fury among people from both sides of the Commons.

Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “It’s an attack on refugee rights, criminalising boats rescuing people at sea and violating our 70-year commitment to the Refugee Convention.

“I voted against it but disgracefully Conservative MPs voted it through.”

Labour MP Harriet Harman, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said: “Current failures in the immigration and asylum system cannot be remedied by harsher penalties and more dangerous enforcement action.”

Tory backbencher Davis called clause 9 “unworkable”. He put forward an amendment to the clause which has also been backed by Tory MPs Andrew Mitchell and Caroline Nokes.

Ian Dunt from the i pointed out: “The government has created a second-tier category of British citizenship, which applies predominantly to ethnic minorities.”

“This bill represents the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK,” human rights group Freedom From Torture said.

Amnesty International claimed the bill will “create significant obstacles and harms to people seeking asylum”, alleging it would undermine the Refugee Convention too.

Immigration lawyers even said the bill breached both international and domestic law in at least 10 ways, accusing the government of “riding roughshod” over its obligations.

Share Button

Boris Johnson Under Fire From Business Chief Over Hi-Viz ‘Chain Gangs’ Plan

Boris Johnson has come under fire from a leading businessman over plans to humiliate offenders by making them work in “fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs”.

The prime minister unveiled plans to put more people doing community service into hi-viz jackets as they cleared rubbish and graffiti.

At the launch of his new crime crackdown plan, Johnson said that he wanted a more visible way of showing offenders working in the streets.

“If you are guilty of antisocial behaviour and you are sentenced to unpaid work, as many people are, I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t be out there in one of those fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs visibly paying your debt to society,” he said.

“So you are going to be seeing more of that.”

But James Timpson, who runs the Timpson’s shoe repair and key cutting chain that is one of the largest employers of ex-offenders in the country, hit out at the PM’s plan on Twitter.

“Instead of making offenders wear high viz jackets in chain gangs, how about helping them get a real job instead?” he wrote.

“In my shops we employ lots of ex offenders and they wear a shirt and tie. Same people, different approach, a much better outcome.”

Timpson’s brother Edward is a Tory MP and the firm has frequently been cited by the government for its social enterprise work.

Campaigners and some Labour MPs also criticised the plan, which Johnson first floated when he ran for Mayor of London in 2008 but didn’t implement.

Civil rights group Liberty said the proposal would not make communities safer but was designed “to create more stigma and division” and was “a short-term stunt that will cause long-term generational harm”.

The Home Office itself had not used the phrase “chain gangs” in its announcement.

It preferred instead to say it would be “making unpaid work more visible by getting offenders to clean up streets, alleys, estates, and open spaces, and ensuring justice is seen to be done”

Johnson’s “Beating Crime” plan, which also included proposals to expand controversial Stop and Search powers, follows Labour’s own campaigns to highlight rising levels of anti-social behaviour across the UK.

During the launch, the PM appeared to admit that the problem was getting worse, but partly blamed Covid lockdowns.

Speaking at Surrey Police HQ, he said: “I do think that the lockdown has driven some anti-social behaviour and we need to deal with it. That’s why we are backing the police in the way that we are.”

Share Button

Draconian Stop And Search Powers To Be Made Permanent In Crime Crackdown

CHARLOTTE GRAHAM via Getty Images

Draconian stop and search powers are to be made permanent under Boris Johnson’s latest crime crackdown.

So-called “Section 60” powers, which allow police to search in an area without having reasonable grounds for suspicion against an individual, will be made easier as part of the “Beating Crime” plan unveiled on Tuesday.

The powers have long been controversial because they have had a disproportionate impact on black communities, but the prime minister has decided to ramp up their use to combat knife crime.

The usual pre-conditions for such searches have been temporarily watered down in recent years and now Johnson wants to make permanent police forces’ ability to deploy them with fewer checks.

The major shift, which finally buries Theresa May’s policy as home secretary to cut the number of stop and searches, is part of a wider package of policies aimed at making the Tories look tougher on crime.

Other plans include:

  • expanding the use of 24-hour electronic tags for all burglars and thieves who leave prison
  • trialling “alcohol tags”, which detect alcohol in the sweat of offenders guilty of drink-fuelled crime
  • getting more offenders to clean up streets and open spaces
  • every neighbourhood having contactable, named police officers
  • league tables for 101 and 999 call answering times to be introduced for each police force

When Johnson was Mayor of London, his use of stop and search was curtailed by May as she drove through reforms aimed at boosting community relations with the police.

Backers of the tougher powers say they are a useful deterrent in response to incidents involving knives in a defined area and stress that safeguards are built into the system to ensure they are not based on race or ethnicity.

But critics argue that “no suspicion” stop and search powers are abused by police officers, with black people nine times more likely to be searched overall than white people.

Campaigners also point out there is little evidence to suggest that “draconian” stop and search provides an effective deterrent to offending, and most searches result in officers finding nothing.

Only around 20% of searches in 2019/20 resulted in a criminal justice outcome – an arrest and an out of court solution – linked to the purpose of the search.

Most stop and searches are used under ‘Section One’ powers, which require officers to have “reasonable grounds” to conduct the search.

Around 5% of searches are ‘Section 60’, often where police had no grounds for  suspicion but used them in a blanket fashion in a particular area for a limited time.

House of Commons – PA Images via Getty Images

Theresa May reduced stop and searches as home secretary

In recent months, police forces in Wales and in London have used such “Section 60” powers to search an entire area after a particular violent incident or disturbance.

In London there were 11,412 searches under Section 60 by the Metropolitan Police in the year ending March 2020, government data shows.

A total of 530 people arrested following these searches, which is an arrest rate of 4.6%. This is compared to an arrest rate of 12.3% for other forms of stop and search.

Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds told HuffPost UK: “The government must be transparent about any potential for disproportionality with these measures.

“It’s vital with any new powers comes proper oversight, especially as building community trust is so vital to tackling crime.

“They must also get on with implementing recommendations from the Lammy review and also look to learn from innovative work being done to improve trust in policing.”

Johnson said: “When I first stood on the steps of Downing Street as prime minister I promised to back the police and make people safer, because we cannot level up the country when crime hits the poorest hardest and draws the most vulnerable into violence.

“That is why my government has remained unstinting in its efforts to protect the British public and this plan delivers a fresh commitment, as we emerge from the impacts of the pandemic, to have less crime, fewer victims and a safer society.”

The Home Office said that it was important to remember that data showed that young black men are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of knife crime.

A spokesperson said: “Stop and search is a vital tool for tackling violence and saving lives.

“The Beating Crime Plan shows we are taking a twin-track approach which combines tough enforcement to get knives off our streets together with early intervention programmes that steer young people onto better paths for the future.

“An assessment of the pilot relaxing conditions on the use of section 60 stop and search showed it gave police officers greater confidence to make use of the power, better reflected the realities and uncertainties officers face on the ground around predicting serious violence, and acted as a deterrent.

“The government is giving the police these powers but ultimately it is an operational decision to use them and we expect officers to use their discretion.”

The pilot scheme assessment – which has yet to be published – covered both qualitative interviews with police officers and community scrutiny leads, and a bespoke data collection from forces including outcomes, authorisation rationale and geographical data.

Analysis of the geography of authorisations in London found “some correlation” between areas with high levels of hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object and section 60 authorisations.

Officers felt there was a deterrent effect of the use of section 60 as they communicate the authorisation to would-be offenders. 

Among safeguards to prevent disproportionate impact on minority groups are statutory codes of practice, the use of body worn video and College of Policing guidance ensuring accountability and guidance on fair use.

Share Button

Windrush Scandal A ‘Shameful Stain On British History’, Says Equality Commission

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development.

Your personal data that may be used

  • Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address
  • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps
  • Precise location

Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

To enable Verizon Media and our partners to process your personal data select ‘I agree‘, or select ‘Manage settings‘ for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls.

Share Button

Priti Patel Struggles To Apologise – Again

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development.

Your personal data that may be used

  • Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address
  • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps
  • Precise location

Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

To enable Verizon Media and our partners to process your personal data select ‘I agree‘, or select ‘Manage settings‘ for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls.

Share Button

Priti Patel ‘Wanted To Send Migrants To Remote Atlantic Island’

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development.

Your personal data that may be used

  • Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address
  • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps
  • Precise location

Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

To enable Verizon Media and our partners to process your personal data select ‘I agree‘, or select ‘Manage settings‘ for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls.

Share Button

Windrush Review Recommendations Accepted By Government In Full

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Click ‘I agree‘ to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use cookies and similar technologies to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. We will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more about how we use your data in our Privacy Centre. Once you confirm your privacy choices here, you can make changes at any time by visiting your Privacy dashboard.

Click ‘Learn more‘ to learn and customise how Verizon Media and our partners collect and use data.

Share Button

Less Than 5% Of Windrush Compensation Claimants Have Been Paid

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Click ‘I agree‘ to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use cookies and similar technologies to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. We will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more about how we use your data in our Privacy Centre. Once you confirm your privacy choices here, you can make changes at any time by visiting your Privacy dashboard.

Click ‘Learn more‘ to learn and customise how Verizon Media and our partners collect and use data.

Share Button

Police Must Not Unfairly Target Ethnic Minorities During Lockdown, MPs Warn

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Click ‘I agree‘ to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use cookies and similar technologies to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. We will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more about how we use your data in our Privacy Centre. Once you confirm your privacy choices here, you can make changes at any time by visiting your Privacy dashboard.

Click ‘Learn more‘ to learn and customise how Verizon Media and our partners collect and use data.

Share Button

Can Boris Johnson’s Defence Of Priti Patel Really Save Her?

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Click ‘I agree‘ to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use cookies and similar technologies to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. We will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more about how we use your data in our Privacy Centre. Once you confirm your privacy choices here, you can make changes at any time by visiting your Privacy dashboard.

Click ‘Learn more‘ to learn and customise how Verizon Media and our partners collect and use data.

Share Button