Defeated amendments to immigration legislation looked like they had been drawn up "on the back of a fag packet" and would leave individuals in legal limbo, it was claimed yesterday.

Tory MP Dominic Raab's proposed changes to the Immigration Bill, which sought to give ministers rather than judges the final say on whether deportation would breach the human rights of foreign criminals, was defeated by 241 votes to 97.

However nearly 100 MPs - many of them Tory backbenchers - voted in favour of allowing ministers to have the ultimate decision.

The amendment only failed thanks to opposition from Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs.

The amendment to the Bill states that naturalised citizens could have their citizenship removed if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it would be for the public good and if the person's conduct has seriously harmed Britain's vital interests.

Speaking in the Commons yesterday Home Secretary Theresa May said there would be "very, very specific and limited circumstances" in which a Home Secretary could exercise the right to leave someone stateless by depriving them of their citizenship.

The Home Secretary already has the power to take away British citizenship from those with dual nationality, but the change would allow her to make people stateless if they have been naturalised as a British citizen.

But SNP member Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) said: "To say this was concocted on the back of a fag packet would do a massive disservice to fag packet speeches."

The Home Office insisted powers to make British citizens stateless would be used sparingly and in strict accordance with Britain's international obligations.

Labour's Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) suggested that a stateless person left to languish in this way would "presumably become destitute in this country, because they would not be eligible for benefits or any other aspects of society."

Shadow immigration minister David Hanson also said he had significant concerns about the proposals and criticised the government for the 11th hour nature of the amendments, insisting it did not allow proper scrutiny.