Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, it is interesting to discuss what is in the eighth group before what is in the ninth, as I would like to have dealt here with the amendment that I have put forward. I shall try to deal with this group of amendments in the right context. We believe that it is right and proper, in general, that we should be able to say that those who have engaged in drug dealing, paedophilia or war crimes—those who are guilty of such serious crimes—fail to meet a good character test, in order to exclude them from the granting of nationality. That is important, which is why we have put these clauses in the Bill. The proposed alternative—that the Secretary of State must grant registration unless satisfied that the applicant has engaged in conduct ““seriously prejudicial to”” vital state interests—does not capture the group of people whom we might wish to. It raises considerably the threshold for refusing registration from that currently being proposed. As I have indicated, it would not allow us to refuse an applicant who had engaged in serious criminal behaviour, much of which would fall short of what could be described as actively or ““seriously prejudicial to”” vital state interests. For that reason, I will not be able to accept Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. I am not sure whether Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 23 and 24 would do what my noble friend Lady Turner intended. What they actually do is make acquisition of nationality at birth, by foundlings and on adoption conditional on good character. I think that that is exactly the opposite of what my noble friend is seeking to do. In other words, she does not want to bring in a good character test for those children at all. I am not accepting the amendments because, as my noble friend is indicating, she does not actually want to do that. Unfortunately, that is the way those amendments are worded. My noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also raised the question of those who are over the age of 10, an age that we will deal with in the next group. My noble friend described the issue of troubled teenagers; I accept that one has to put into context the matter of young people who have perhaps had issues. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about those who have perhaps had anti-social behaviour orders. It is relevant to consider that there are young people who may have committed quite serious offences with whom we would wish to engage in terms of considering good character. I do not accept the premise that a 17 year-old or a 16 year-old is not responsible. That is where we come to the age of 10. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether my honourable friend Mr McNulty had considered the age of 10 a few months ago. The first time that it came up was when I raised it in your Lordships’ House having thought about it earlier in the day. I am wholly responsible for the amendment, which I am glad to say my honourable friend Mr McNulty was happy to go along with. It is entirely me—he is not responsible in any way for it. We think that we have captured what noble Lords were rightly saying about children and that we have captured it in a way that recognises that, within our law, we have an age of criminal responsibility. I will come on to that. I am happy to accept Amendment No. 21. When we come to the next group, noble Lords will find that it fits perfectly well with what we are seeking to achieve. On Amendment No. 30, which is about the under-sixes, our Amendment No. 29 has the same effect but will provide greater legislative clarity. We just think that our amendment is better drafted. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment. This is an important test and we have positioned it appropriately. We have recognised the issues that were raised about children, which we will come on to deal with. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.