Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

In this amendment, we are trying to ensure that periods of temporary admission, temporary release or detention can count toward the qualifying period if they are immediately followed by a grant of a qualifying immigration status. Amendment 55 is an alternative to the first, which would ensure that those who have made a claim for asylum or who are here on human rights grounds, and those claiming entitlement to exercise rights of free movement under European Community law, can count time spent in the UK prior to the determination of their application as part of the qualifying period, and that ""exceptional leave to remain outside the immigration rules"," also counts toward it. Some migrants may have their path to citizenship interrupted by the UK Border Agency for reasons that turn out to be unnecessary, or sometimes where there might have been misinformation and a wrong decision has been taken. These amendments seek to further the Government’s aim of promoting integration of those migrants who are anticipated to make the UK their home by ensuring that delays in processing their claims, or unnecessary interruptions in their temporary leave, do not delay their progress toward citizenship. Amendment 54 would mean that someone who was awaiting the UK Border Agency to resolve their application for leave to enter the UK would not be prejudiced by that delay, contributing to an overall delay in their progress to citizenship. Under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, a person who arrives in the UK may be granted temporary admission while the UK Border Agency considers his or her entitlement to be granted temporary leave. This generally applies to refugees and others who may qualify for humanitarian protection or discretionary leave on the basis of a human rights claim. Amendment 54 would also mean that someone who was wrongly detained while on temporary leave or otherwise had his leave wrongly curtailed would not be prejudiced by having to start the path to citizenship all over again once this unnecessary or perhaps misinformed interruption was resolved. Let us think of a person who arrived in the UK, claimed asylum and was then granted temporary admission. However, their asylum claim was not dealt with for several months and was then refused on incorrect grounds. Although the person successfully appealed against the decision, they were not recognised as a refugee until several years had passed since their arrival. All the time that they had been in the UK, up to the point at which their refugee status was granted, they were on temporary admission, had complied with all the conditions of it and had not been in any breach of immigration laws. Nevertheless, under Clause 37 as it is currently drafted, their time in the UK awaiting the decision to recognise them as a refugee would not be allowed to be counted towards their qualifying period of citizenship. I would have thought that the Minister, having heard the debate on the previous amendment, of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to which many other noble Lords contributed, would have got the drift of the feeling of the Committee by now; namely, that that would be seen by us to be rather unfair. On that basis, I hope that he will consider this amendment favourably as it enhances the agenda of integration. I beg to move.