Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

moved Amendment No. 69:"Page 29, line 19, at end insert—" ““(   )   The Refugee Convention shall not be interpreted by the Secretary of State in such a way as to limit to five years the maximum period of leave to remain a refugee may be granted.”” The noble Lord said: Clause 52 has been severely criticised, not only by the UNHCR, but by the Association of Chief Police Officers, by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and by the British Refugee Council. There are strong grounds for thinking that the clause is unnecessary, as the convention and British jurisprudence already regularly deal with the issues involved. The UNHCR argues that essential refugee protection principles must be maintained. Therefore, Article 1F(c) must be read narrowly and remain within the remit of the judiciary. I turn now to Amendment No. 69, which, I admit, is my least good amendment. It goes wider than the scope of Clause 52 because it concerns all those who are recognised as refugees and therefore are granted leave to remain. I should like to see the clause—or perhaps I should say the amendment rather than the clause—cover all those granted indefinite leave to remain, whether or not it also gives them refugee status. The Law Society has pointed out that indefinite leave to remain was introduced in 1998 to help refugees to integrate more easily and quickly. At the time it was trumpeted as the Government’s humanitarian approach to this country’s obligations. Why is it now being abolished? We need a full and convincing answer to that question. The policy of allowing refugees in for five years in the hope that they can then go home is, I believe, fundamentally flawed. It reduces refugee status to slightly less than the old exceptional leave to remain. It was very useful when countries were suffering internal wars and there was a genuine hope of subsequent return, but if refugees are only to be allowed here for five years, how can they be expected to retrain or to acquire British qualifications? How can employers be expected to take them on for responsible posts when their medium-term future is so uncertain? This is particularly the case for teachers and doctors, who we know are already in short supply here. The amendment has several defects. First, it has almost certainly been put down in the wrong place and, secondly, even if accepted, the Secretary of State could circumvent it by granting leave to remain for five and a half or six years. It may, perhaps, serve to open up discussion and I therefore bring it forward in a tentative and probing way. I beg to move.