Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and other noble Lords. I agree with what she said about the good character test as it applies to minors. I also welcome the concession that the Minister made that children under 10 will not be subject to a good character test. However, I question whether the age of criminal responsibility—which the noble Baroness mentioned at some point during our proceedings in Grand Committee or on Report; I cannot remember which—is a satisfactory criterion to use. The 1981 Act does not give a definition of good character. The nearest I can come to it is a Written Answer by Mr McNulty in another place in which he said:"““As part of the naturalisation process a police record check is made into all applicants. A check is also made on older minors””." I do not know whether he meant that, at the stage when he answered the Question in October 2005, the limit of 10 years of age had already been introduced as a matter of administrative practice rather than as a law. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would clarify that. Mr McNulty continued:"““In assessing whether any previous criminal activity would affect a person’s ability to meet the good character requirement, we would take into account the nature of the offence, the age of the offender and the length of time that had elapsed since conviction. If sufficient time free of further offending had not elapsed since the offence, the application would normally be refused””.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/05; col. 1031-32W.]" We need only look to see what happens in cases of application for naturalisation. I once had a case where the applicant was a bank manager married to a Swedish citizen. They would go home every summer to her parents in Sweden for the holidays—it was a regular occurrence. This person had an international driving licence, which he renewed while in Sweden. The question put to him by the interviewing officer with respect to his application was, ““Have you ever applied for a British driving licence?”” He said that he had, but that it had not been convenient for him to take the test, which was why he continued to rely on the international driving licence. When, after persistent and relentless inquiry, I persuaded the Home Office to tell me why the man’s application for citizenship had been refused, I was told that it was because he had dishonestly pretended that he had taken the driving test in the United Kingdom—but he had done no such thing. There may have been a difference of interpretation in what he had said in answer to the questions, but he was quite definite in asserting that he had never taken the test and never said that he had—and that he had told the interviewing officer that he continued to rely on his international driving licence. A triviality of that kind denied him citizenship, although, when he applied again three years later, that was overlooked. Do we really want that kind of test to be applied to those that this clause concerns? I believe that the age of 10 is not an appropriate one to have in the Bill, although it is better than where we started. I wish that the Minister had made a little more effort to look at the arguments that older children—up to the age of 18, as we believe—should not be subject to this test.