division_name: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
motion: <p pid="a.395.3/1" pwmotiontext="disagreedto">Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.</p>
  
  <p pid="a.395.3/2" pwmotiontext="notmoved">[Amendments 89 and 90 not moved].</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/1" pwmotiontext="moved">moved Amendment No. 91:</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a.396.0/2" pwmotiontext="moved">Page 52, line 29, at end insert&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/3" pwmotiontext="moved">"(2A) If the Secretary of State certifies under subsection (2) that a claim is clearly unfounded, the person who made the claim may, with the permission of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, appeal to the Tribunal against the certificate.</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/4" pwmotiontext="moved">(2B) A party to an appeal to the Tribunal under subsection (2A) may apply to the High Court, or in Scotland to the Court of Session, for a review of the Tribunal's decision on the ground that the Tribunal made an error of law.</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/5" pwmotiontext="moved">(2C) Where an application is made under subsection (2B)&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/6" pwmotiontext="moved">(a) it shall be determined by a single judge by reference only to written submissions,</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/7" pwmotiontext="moved">(b) the judge may affirm or reverse the Tribunal's decision, and</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.0/8" pwmotiontext="moved">(c) the judge's decision shall be final."</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.2/1" pwmotiontext="considered">On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 91) shall be agreed to?</p>
  
  <p pid="a.396.2/2" pwmotiontext="divided">Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 71.</p>