Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister rightly said that the purposes for which information is collected may include the prevention of crime. She may remember the significant debates in both Houses during the passage of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 on whether the threshold should be crime or serious crime. I and my hon. Friends took the view that it should be serious crime. Does the test of good character referred to in the clause require an individual to be absolutely blameless—in other words, crime-free in all respects? Would the lower end of crime, such as speeding or parking offences or other summary offences, stand in the way of an application? What is the test and is there flexibility? Would administrative offences that are technically crimes prevent someone from qualifying, and justify the exchange of information for which the clause provides?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The good character test is always left to the discretion of the Secretary of State for naturalisation purposes. Such a test would be ludicrous if it meant that someone with a parking offence could not become a naturalised citizen. Criminal activities range from parking and summary offences to far more serious crimes, and the power of the Secretary of State to exercise discretion should take

account of that. There is no fixed statutory means of achieving that, which is why the Secretary of State has discretion. Clearly, minor offences carry less weight. The clause deals with the facts that the Secretary of State needs to take into account to exercise discretion under the law. A pattern of less serious offences might lead to a refusal, as might a more serious offence. As I have explained, the law currently leaves decisions to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

It is clear that inappropriate granting of British citizenship to people engaged in serious criminal activity is potentially harmful to public safety, so the clause provides a legal basis for chief officers of the police, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal and Intelligence Service, HM Customs and Excise, certain contractors providing accommodation under the National Asylum Support Service and persons specified by order under section 20 of the 1999 Act to disclose information to the Secretary of State to verify good character for immigration purposes.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that such information plays an important role in the appropriate exercise of discretion. The clause ensures that it can properly be passed to the Secretary of State by those specified bodies.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I can reinforce the point that good character is a difficult concept. In our courts, defendants often ask to be viewed as of good character when they have no previous convictions, have only a minor previous conviction or perhaps have a serious conviction but of a different nature that took place many years ago. I agree with the Minister that it is largely a matter of discretion, and that exercising it appropriately is not easy. I do not know what else I have to add; in fact, I am not even sure that it was worth adding what I have just said.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That was a perfectly reasonable addition, if I may say so. The Minister is, of course, right about the need for discretion. I was not suggesting otherwise, but merely wanted to discover whether certain preconditions applied.

It would be useful to know at an appropriate point in our proceedings how many applications were made over the previous five years and how many were turned down on the basis of failing the good character test. Does the Home Secretary use a general guideline to determine whether people who have been turned down once on good character grounds should be able to apply again? Are guidelines available to apply certain standards? Could someone pass the test on a second application, having been turned down on the first?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Yes, there is always that chance because the Secretary of State has discretion. A pattern of good behaviour after an earlier criminal career might lead the Secretary of State to revisit an earlier decision. Common sense applies to discretion, which means exactly that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, for the appropriate exercise of

discretion, it is helpful if all relevant information is made available. That is what the gateway in the clause allows with respect to the named organisations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.