Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

I should explain that the two amendments in this group have been renumbered and possibly also regrouped since they were first put down. Amendment 52ZA is concerned with the language requirement for citizenship. It has been drafted by the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Its purpose is to ensure that refugees and those with humanitarian protection or their family members are not disadvantaged by an inability to meet the language requirements because of the special circumstances of their situation and past history. The UNHCR points out that, before arriving in Britain, many refugees and protected persons will have fled from communities torn apart by conflict or persecution. They may have spent years in makeshift camps. They may have lived in remote areas with little available education, let alone access to English language training. I would add that some have suffered torture or other brutality, while others have a range of mental and physical needs, including dyslexia, speech problems and depression, all of which may make learning a new language difficult or impossible. We are considering a uniquely vulnerable group of people who differ markedly from young, healthy students or economic migrants. The group includes some full-time and part-time carers. The Minister will notice that this is essentially a permissive amendment. It gives the Secretary of State discretion to waive the requirement if, and only if, it would be unreasonable for it to be met. I therefore ask the Minister to accept this very modest amendment as it stands, or at the very least to say that he will take away the principle behind it. Amendment 61B also comes with the approval of the UNHCR. The high commission is concerned about the successful integration of refugees in the countries where they are recognised and accepted. The final solutions should not therefore be unnecessarily delayed. In particular, refugees should not be required to show that they were not in Britain in breach of the immigration laws at any time during the qualifying period for citizenship. The reason for this is simple. Article 31 of the 1951 convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees on account of illegal entry or presence, ""provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence"." I have quoted directly from the convention. Delaying the start of the qualifying period is a good example of a penalty. Britain helped to draft the convention and has ratified it, and is not entitled to opt out or make a reservation by means of one line in a very miscellaneous Bill. If his memory is exceptionally good, the noble Lord, Lord West, may recall that I wrote to him on 24 October last following a Written Question. I stated then that many genuine refugees fleeing persecution have no option but to travel on someone else’s passport or on a forged document. Others may have entered illegally by stowing away or by some other desperate expedient. All will have committed technical breaches of immigration law or rules, but provided that they subsequently comply with the convention, they should not be penalised. I therefore commend this amendment to your Lordships and urge the Minister to accept it. If he wishes to argue that the paragraph in question applies to the totality of applicants for naturalisation, will he please arrange for a redraft which would specifically exempt recognised refugees? Any perfected amendment should probably also take account of Clause 37(2)(f), which is similar. I beg to move.