---

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): I support the amendments. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that his persistent campaign on the issue has not gone unnoticed. His efforts, and those of the hon. Members for Bradford, West(Mr. Madden) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), should commend themselves to the Government and command all-party support.

It is ironic that only yesterday we were told that a heavy hand should be raised against the 10,000 people who were supposedly working illegally in this country and using false documents to secure those jobs. Today we have an opportunity to do something about those who are culpable of working illegally and using the most unacceptable methods. As has been said, they are causing grievous distress to the people whom they have impersonated or to their families.

It seems bizarre that in amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46, tabled by the Under-Secretary, we are now saying that if a document looks official in some way, we will not prosecute. That shows that the Government are willing to be more reasonable than they were even yesterday. However, the Government are not prepared to do anything about the one document--a false birth certificate--that we know might be falsely held and used illegally.

As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, a statement was made to the House about that problem as long ago as February 1990. In answer to a question from the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Chelmsford(Mr. Burns), the Government replied:

"Nearly all of the changes envisaged will require legislation for their implementation, and the Government hope to introduce this at an early date".--[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 353.]

I hope that the Government Whip's office is a little more efficient about other matters than it has been in implementing the reply that the hon. Gentleman received in 1990. In 1995, the Prime Minister said that the need for legislation:

"has not been lost between the Home Office and the Department of Health".

In an article in the Evening Standard on 13 December 1995,

"A Home Office spokeswoman said she was aware that procedures had been tightened. She said: 'There have been some occasions when people applied for replacement birth certificates and other certificates which haven't necessarily been replacements for their own. We have picked up 10,000 people working illegally last year. Primarily it is birth certificates that are used.'"

The legislation proposes every possible way of tackling refugees and asylum seekers, but it does not tackle the problem that the Government say is primarily to blame. Something should be done about it and amendment No. 57 provides an opportunity to do so. If the Government cannot give that assurance today, I hope that they will have the sense to do so in another place.

22 Feb 1996 : Column 529

5.30 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr(Mr. Rooker) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on their persistent campaign to bring the matter to public attention and to the attention of the House.

Reliable and secure certification of identity is fundamental to the operation of a democracy such as ours. Without it, people cannot claim their rights. Moreover, there is an open encouragement to the fraudulent access to rights to which people are not entitled. Having examined its background, I am quite astonished by the Government's complacency on the issue. They accept that there is a problem, but they sit on their hands when sensible proposals are made--not by us, but by Ministers--to deal with it.

It is not a controversial issue between the parties. We have said before and I say again that we shall co-operate fully with the Government in putting legislation on the statute book, either within the Bill or separately, before the summer. If Ministers are wondering why their motives in bringing forward employer checks are open to question, they need look no further than the gaping hole in the regime. On one hand, they impose criminal sanctions on decent, hard-working small business people; on the other hand, they are faced with a complete scandal by which people can evade those controls to obtain jobs and other benefits, and although proposals have been ready and waiting in a White Paper for five years, following a Green Paper two years previously, they take absolutely no action.

Action is required. Without it, the continuing scandal of people gaining access to rights, including benefits and jobs, will continue. We want it stopped and we want the Government to accept our offer to have it stopped.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am grateful to everybody for their contributions in the short debate. There was certainly a general feeling of sympathy, and I shall undertake to draw our exchanges to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who is aware of the matter, as I explained earlier.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I should like briefly to point out to my hon. Friend that the cases about which we have heard have largely been resolved, but the person who impersonated my constituent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, served only three weeks and is now impersonating her again. She ought to be deported, but no one knows from which country she comes and she says that she does not know either. Those extra difficulties make the matter even more urgent.

Mr. Kirkhope: I thank my hon. Friend for that. As I said, I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the details of this evening's debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 5, line 25, leave out 'related' and insert

'appeared to him to relate'.

No. 46, in page 5, line 27, at end insert 'and

(b) either the document was retained by the employer, or a copy or other record of it was made by the employer in a manner specified in the order in relation to documents of that description.'--[Mr. Kirkhope.]

22 Feb 1996 : Column 530

Clause 9

Entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 6, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'immigrant' in line 3 and insert
'no tenancy of, or licence to occupy, housing accommodation provided under the accommodation Part is granted to an'.
No. 48, in page 6, line 32, at end insert--
' "licence to occupy", in relation to Scotland, means a permission or right to occupy;
"tenancy", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as it has in the Housing Act 1985.'.--[Miss Widdecombe.]

Clause 10

Entitlement to child benefit

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert--

'"(1) No person to whom subsection (2) below applies shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless she satisfies prescribed conditions.
(2) This subsection applies to a person who under the Immigration Act 1971 requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who--
(a) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(b) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or
(c) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(d) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above;
whether or not such leave has been given.".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 10, in clause 12, page 7, line 9, leave out from 'means' to end of line 11 and insert--

'(a) for the purposes of section 8, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given) and who has not been recognised as a refugee; and
(b) for the purposes of section 9, a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who--
(i) is not a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(ii) is not a person who has been recognised as a refugee, or
(iii) is not a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(iv) is not a dependant of a person falling within the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above;
whether or not such leave has been given.'.

Mr. Henderson: When clause 12 was discussed in Committee, there was much concern about the definition of an immigrant and who would be caught under the provision. Clause 12 gives the Secretary of State power to make that definition by order. There was considerable anxiety that, some persons, who are effectively British citizens--having lived here for most of their lives, having paid taxes for 20 or 30 years, having sometimes served with British forces and having made a major contribution

22 Feb 1996 : Column 531

to the economy--could suddenly be classified as immigrants under the new definition and, in some circumstances, no longer be entitled to housing assistance or child benefit. There was a lengthy discussion about just what circumstances would apply in relation to clauses 10 and 12.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would introduce minimum definitions of those who would not be excluded. The three categories would be:

"a person who has been granted indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom . . . a person who has been recognised as a refugee . . . a person who has been granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom"

and the dependants of persons in those categories.

I do not know whether the Government are yet able to issue a precise definition of an immigrant for the purposes of the Bill, covering all circumstances. Perhaps the Minister has something up her sleeve. If not, and there is still the confusion that there was in Committee, there is a case for providing at least a minimal classification of who would not be covered by the definition of an immigrant in clause 12.

---