Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

The Minister has ranged over amendments that are not in this group. I wanted to say a few words on Amendment No. 171, which I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will no longer wish to move. Perhaps I may do so now. The principle of non-refoulement is not respected everywhere but it is respected in this country, and I am sure we all accept that the only exceptions should be those who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime. However, Section 72 of the NIA 2002 Act sets a conviction of two years’ imprisonment as a benchmark. The related specification of particularly serious crimes order specifies crimes such as shoplifting, graffiti and even road traffic offences, regardless of the duration of the sentence. Why are we permitting such a low threshold for the return of someone who may be a genuine refugee, as we have already heard? On Clause 181(4), Section 54 of the IAN 2006 Act again broadens the interpretation of the convention by redefining Article 1F(c)—which, as the Minister said, refers to persons, "““guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations””." As he acknowledges, the UNHCR is concerned about this. It has been throughout the passage of these Acts. It questions, as I do, whether it is appropriate to designate persons excluded under Article 1F as foreign criminals. The Minister has covered those points, but I do not think that he will have satisfied the United Nations refugee agency.