Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He has implied that I may have said something inappropriate. I did not check with the Leader of the House and I am told by the Clerks that the rules governing sub judice do not apply to Bills, so the rule would not apply in that context. Further, in everything I say I ensure that I am given proper legal advice. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue whether I have behaved inappropriately, he is of course at liberty to do so. I recommend that he takes it up with the Leader of the House. However, as I was referring to a particular case where the powers that exist were being used and had been dealt with in 2003, I do not think I am in breach of anything. However, the noble Lord will make his own mind up about it. I agree with all those noble Lords who said that citizenship is seen, rightly, as a fundamental element of national and individual identity. We do not grant British citizenship lightly; nor do we contemplate deprivation of British citizenship lightly. The present criterion, referred to by noble Lords, is that the person has done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or an overseas territory. It is a very high test. When noble Lords invited me to indicate how often it had been used, I indicated that it had not been used because it was indeed a very high test. Our experience, on looking back over cases from the past two or three years, is that the test is too high and the hurdles too great. There are people living here who are—or have been in the past—war criminals, radical preachers and other activists who seek to provoke others, as well as those involved in serious and organised crime. Their activities are incompatible with the holding of British citizenship and their presence here is very much against the interests of this country and its people. For example, an individual involved in the large-scale trafficking of young women from eastern Europe for prostitution would not be covered under the current test, but could be under the test we are proposing. We are concerned that the holding of citizenship precludes the exclusion or deportation from the United Kingdom of such people. They are very few in number, but are none the less significant. We have various measures we can take against them. Our intention, of course, is to prosecute wherever possible, but we should also consider our options under immigration powers and elsewhere. Where one of these people holds citizenship, we will consider its removal to enable other actions, such as deportation or exclusion, to be pursued on the basis—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—of their dual nationality. Replacing the currently seriously prejudicial test with a conducive test would greatly facilitate our ability to deprive of citizenship and enable other effective action to be taken. That is the basis upon which we have put forward the proposals within this legislation. As I have indicated at previous stages of this Bill, the Government takes its responsibilities in this area seriously, and we believe it is right that the changes should be made. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.