Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

I am grateful that I appear to be helping my noble friend; it is always a pleasure when I do. I was hoping that I was included in his remarks about affection, as he is certainly included in mine. I am very clear that the principle that we are trying to establish in what we are doing is that this is a limited but important part of the way in which we deal with what could be described—as it has been described in many places—as an unprecedented concern about terrorism in particular but also about people who are involved in trafficking and war crimes and so on. The critical factor, if we accept that principle—and some noble Lords may not—is then to look at how we best recognise the level and kinds of activities that people may undertake and to be sure that we have the ability to say, ““This is not acceptable.”” The difficulty with the higher test that we had is that we already know of situations in which people may not be caught. We believe that they should not continue to be dual citizens—or, in the case of those seeking citizenship, should not be granted it—because of their activities. One might argue that they were not necessarily a great danger in this country but that their behaviours were, in our view, completely unacceptable. I understand why noble Lords are concerned to ensure that there is as great a clarity as possible within that, so that one is not left with wide discretions that might lead us in directions that noble Lords will be fearful of. The list of behaviours is not exhaustive for reasons that I am sure noble Lords will accept. It is very difficult to predict what may happen in future because of rights of appeal and the role of the courts, which ultimately settle what is meant—something that we are all very proud of. We need to be as clear as we can about the list to provide the clarity that noble Lords want to see. The difficulty always comes in using a phrase that has resonance but which of itself is not definitive—as the higher test was not. We must accept that the Government must be able to consider the kinds of activities that I have described already as being cases that are live, and that they make the appropriate decisions with the reassurances that I have given about the role of the courts, the Human Rights Act and the ability to appeal. If one were able to give a definitive list and say that the following 10 behaviours were all we had to concern ourselves with, I am sure my right honourable friend would be happy, as would noble Lords. But we are not in that position and, I suggest, probably never will be because of changing circumstances, along with the issues that we face and the kind of serious concerns that we have. I referred to trafficking, which was not something that 20 years ago I was particularly concerned about in this country. Who knows what in five years’ time might be the serious problem? We might want to say that human trafficking may not be a direct threat to this country—but, my goodness, it is a direct threat to everything that we stand for. Therefore, to be able to be definitive is impossible, yet not to take the opportunity to try to tackle these questions would be foolish. So although I understand the concerns that have been raised and accept the way in which the Joint Committee has tried, as always, to look at the matter in great detail and with great care, we ultimately have to make a decision, recognising that the safeguards are in place that will help us to ensure that these powers will be used sparingly—which is our intention—but appropriately.