Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 11:"Page 31, line 15, leave out subsection (1)." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister will recall that we were going to discuss Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 on Report. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time, and the Minister and the Whip agreed that this matter could be raised at Third Reading. Again, there was ample discussion on this matter in Committee. I do not intend to elaborate much on that, other than to express our concern. Perhaps these are the most serious items in this legislation. Our concern is that when taking a decision to deprive someone of a right of abode or citizenship, the highest standard of test must be established, rather than a lowering of standards. We have been greatly assisted in our amendment by the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. The purpose of the amendment is simply to retain the current test for deprivation of citizenship; that is, having done something which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British Overseas Territory. To date, the Minister has coupled denials that this is sufficiently broad with examples that fall fairly and squarely within it. The consequential amendment is necessary because line 20 becomes the first reference to the British Nationality Act 1981 in the Act. Amendment No. 13 would apply to the new powers to deprive people of the right of abode the same test as is currently used and we suggest should continue to be used for deprivation of citizenship. That effectively means the existing test of having done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British overseas territory. This meets the criticisms of the clause that were voiced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Further, this amendment will take out the subjective test involved with the phrase ““the Secretary of State thinks””—this came up in an argument earlier on—and replace it with the phrase ““is satisfied”” as for deprivation of citizenship. The Bill contains ““is satisfied that””, even in the rare clauses that do not    amend previous legislation, for example Section 33(2), 33(7) and 36(5). Any suggestion that this is mere plain English is obviously treated by us with extreme caution. I beg to move.