Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, I appreciate the contributions by both noble Baronesses. I recall in Committee being upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for getting into the argument about the name, when he made the point, which has been made again tonight, that it is a question of substance and what it actually means and does. I will try to deal with those principal points of concern in turn. First, it is argued that "probationary citizenship" is merely further limited leave and as such it should simply be called that, and doing otherwise merely serves to complicate the system. That was, succinctly, the position of the noble Baroness. I agree that probationary citizenship is, legally, a grant of further limited leave to remain. We have made no secret of this. The question is on the second point, where the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that it is the same system by another name. We do not believe that it is. I strongly disagree with the point that it adds nothing to the system other than to complicate it. We would argue that it supports our aim to make the path to citizenship clearer for migrants and the public. Our proposals set out a much clearer architecture than exists at present, by simplifying the multiplicity of routes to citizenship and replacing them with three clear routes—the work route, the family route and the protection route—and three clear stages: temporary residence, probationary citizenship and British citizenship or permanent residence. There have been suggestions that another stage is being put in, but that is not so. At present, all migrants must pass through two stages—limited leave, then indefinite leave to remain—to qualify for citizenship. Under the new system, they must still pass through two stages to get to citizenship; namely, temporary residence and probationary citizenship. A second accusation is that probationary citizenship serves no purpose and offers no benefit to the migrant. That is not correct. The new stage of probationary citizenship marks out that migrants who qualify for it have already started to make a significant step on the road to citizenship; probationary citizens are eligible to naturalise if they meet the requirements. All migrants, whether they intend to stay here for one day or for ever, start off as temporary residents, subject to certain exceptions, such as gateway refugees who get permanent residence on arrival. There are no distinctions between migrants in terms of the leave that they have; they are all temporary residents. But it is not possible for migrants in this first stage to progress directly to citizenship/permanent residence. Only those who make that significant step to probationary citizenship are in the privileged position of being able to naturalise. That hugely significant benefit to the migrant should be acknowledged; it gives them a distinct status and it is our way of acknowledging that step. I also reject the suggestion that probationary citizenship does not encourage integration. Once a migrant takes that significant step towards citizenship by qualifying for probationary citizenship, our aim is to give them a distinct form of leave with a distinct name so that their minds will be focused on the fact that they now have to choose whether and when they wish to apply for citizenship. If they wish to qualify for citizenship, they can do so in a minimum of one year if they do active citizenship. We think that by introducing probationary citizenship, we will encourage migrants to make a conscious choice about their long-term future in the UK. At the same time, giving this group a distinct type of leave helps to demonstrate to the UK public that these people are making a significant commitment and have advanced on the path to citizenship, thus promoting community cohesion. We want to encourage all migrants who qualify to stay in the UK permanently to take up full British citizenship. We think that this is the best way to facilitate the full integration of a migrant into UK society. Under the old system, in which migrants passed from limited leave to remain to indefinite leave to remain before being eligible for citizenship, there was little incentive to apply for citizenship as the terms of ILR are similar to those of British citizenship. However, by introducing probationary citizenship we are rectifying this. There are significant benefits to the migrants of being a citizen compared with having probationary citizenship and they can qualify for citizenship more quickly than they can permanent residence. As such, by introducing probationary citizenship, we are creating strong incentives for migrants who qualify to stay here permanently to take up full British citizenship and thus integrate more effectively into UK society. I am sure that the whole House supports efforts to improve integration. Noble Lords will appreciate that what I have stated leads us to the conclusion that the stage should be called "probationary citizenship". Indeed, as I stated in Committee, I am more than happy to consider other names if someone can suggest a preferable alternative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that a positive term would be welcome. My judgment of "probation" is not the same as that held by people with a background in law and order. However, at present, I do not think that the phrase "limited leave to remain" improves the proposals, as we would lose the advantages that I have outlined which "probationary citizenship" would attract. For the same reason, I do not think that the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in Committee of "interim leave to remain" is an improvement. We want to make it clear that the migrant has advanced on the path to citizenship and neither suggestion does that. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, suggested the term "qualifying citizenship" as an alternative. While that has its merits, our concern is that it does not quite capture the essence of the stage, in that, at that point, the migrant is on probation and, if they so wish, can prove that they have earned the right to citizenship. Therefore, I continue to consider that "probationary citizenship" is the right term for this stage. As I have said, we do not suggest that that is the best phrase. If more positive and more effective names are put forward, we could be persuaded, at a later stage in the Bill, to make a substitution. In the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.