Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, my four years’ membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights gave me the opportunity to find out quite a lot about the immigration and asylum system. That experience forms the basis of the points that I shall make today. Some of your Lordships may remember the debate on another immigration Bill, the UK Borders Bill, on 13 June 2007. Eighteen months later, the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester in that debate have not become out of date. He said: "““Words such as unjust, inhumane, ignorant and thoughtless are constantly in my and others’ minds as we find ourselves working with people at the sharp end of these systems, whether ""they are asylum seekers or those who, in a range of ways, have been tasked or have volunteered to work with asylum seekers. I find that the system … puts at risk the well-being and lives of vulnerable people and those who should be treated better””.—[Official Report, 13/6/07; col. 1720.]" There have undoubtedly been some changes since June 2007, the lifting of the reservation on the Convention on the Rights of the Child being one notable and most welcome example, but, overall, nothing has happened that could lead one to conclude that those words of the right reverend Prelate are no longer accurate. They were echoed in the thought-provoking remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln earlier today. Since I first came into contact with the current asylum system, visited detention centres and read many reports, I have been struck by the range of individuals and organisations working in campaigns and committees to get protection for those fleeing persecution and to right the wrongs of the asylum system. It is a great British tradition of which we can be very proud—I mention that great reformer, Eleanor Rathbone, who instigated the Parliamentary Committee on Refugees in 1939, and Sir Nicholas Winton, who rescued many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Czechoslovakia. In that tradition, we have today Still Human Still Here, which is a coalition of 29 organisations, the Strangers into Citizens campaign and the Refugee Children’s Consortium. Their work and that of many like them is a manifestation of our very human sense of responsibility to alleviate the suffering of others and to save life where we can. So these are not technical matters; first and foremost, they are matters of life and death for many human beings, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out. If the Minister has formed the opinion that I am being a bit hard on the Government, perhaps I may remind him of the case of the gay student, Mehdi Kazemi, who was to be returned by the Government to Iran, where his boyfriend had been hanged for homosexual activity, until there was a spirited intervention by many, including some who are speaking in this debate, and the Government changed their mind. It is sad that not much of this spirit and sense of urgency have found their way into the rather unsatisfactory Bill before us. On destitution, I remind the Minister that the Joint Committee on Human Rights said: "““We have been persuaded by the evidence that the Government has indeed been practising a deliberate policy of destitution of this highly vulnerable group””." The Minister heard the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, explain most eloquently what this means. Why have the Government not included in the Bill a change so that all refused asylum seekers can be given cash support under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 until they return to their country of origin or are given status in the UK? That would save the Government substantial resources. It would save money, because there would be no need to assess entitlement to Section 4 support—to see who would get vouchers and who would not. There would be no need to administer a voucher scheme at all, in which there must be considerable administration costs. There would be no need to use the asylum support adjudicators appeals process for those refused Section 4 support. I hope that we shall see amendments in Committee to deal with this. Perhaps I may turn briefly to what is in the Bill. Clauses 37 to 39, on acquisition of British citizenship by naturalisation, present a range of problems for those fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary, because of the barriers that the proposals will put in the way of their becoming lawfully resettled and building a new life. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has particular concern about these clauses. The UNHCR makes the point that, "““the acquisition of British citizenship proposed by Clauses 37-39 complicates the naturalisation process””," and in particular that, "““the naturalisation requirements, as presently outlined in the Bill, may prove too difficult for refugees or those with humanitarian protection to meet and may in fact impair integration and access to a durable solution””." The lack of clarity in the Bill on what situations will count as a ““qualifying immigration period”” is of concern. The Refugee Legal Centre argues that a refugee must be able, "““to count the time they spent in the UK making a well-founded claim for asylum as part of their qualifying period for naturalisation””." An asylum seeker does not become a refugee because the Home Office decides to grant him refugee status. The decision to grant status is a declaration that the person already was a refugee. The UNHCR is concerned at the length of time it will take under these provisions to become a citizen and maintains that best practice suggests no longer than five years, which should include those whom the Government have accepted under the Gateway Protection Programme. In its comment on the Bill, the UNHCR has reiterated its view that those seeking asylum should not be penalised for illegal entry. It is regrettable that once again this UN agency has to remind the Government of that. It is quite hard for an ordinary person to understand how someone fleeing persecution is going to go to all the offices of the Government persecuting them and collect passports and visas to flee lawfully. Perhaps when the Minister replies he can give the House a convincing explanation as to how that can be done. I hope also that the noble Lord can make it clear that, despite Clause 37(2)(f), refugees will not be penalised for illegal entry by having to wait longer before they can apply for naturalisation. The Government are a committed supporter of the work of the United Nations and one of the key players in its activities. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the UNHCR comments on the Bill will be taken seriously by the Government, and that he will look again at the points it has raised to see what can be done to improve the Bill to make it accord more with the refugee convention to which this country is a signatory.