Paul
Rowen: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference of
approach between the amendment tabled by the Conservative spokesman in
the other place, and passed, and this one? The one in the House of
Lords applied to all migrants with limited leave to remain. The
amendment before us is highly specific, in that it deals with the
highly skilled migrant. Indeed, it does not even cover all the
categories that were entitled to coverage according to the judicial
review.
Damian
Green: That is a fair point. There are two separate points
in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, the first being why we are
amending our own amendment. That is precisely the point that I have
been seeking to make. It is hugely important for the future prosperity
of the country that we continue to attract, as I said, not just our
fair share, but more than our fair share, of highly skilled
migrants. The
second point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that it was the highly
skilled migrants forum that took the case to court. The further
refining of the amendment
that we moved successfully in the Lords should help to focus the
Committee’s attention on the most damaging effects of the policy
that the Government have been consistently adopting for several years
now, and from which I hope the Minister will tell us that he is about
to retreat. Now I have forgotten what the second half of the hon.
Gentleman’s point
was. Paul
Rowen: The second point is why the amendment does not
cover the length of time that highly skilled migrants were given to
apply for permanent leave to
remain.
Damian
Green: That is a fair point. The answer involves those who
have got to the stage of having been in this country for a number of
years and who are therefore looking to the next stage of their lives.
They may have already taken the decision to apply for citizenship,
which I take as an indication that they want to reside here
permanently, conceivably for the rest of their lives, and never return
to their original homeland. Those people will feel particularly let
down and that what has been happening is unfair. It is specifically
that group that we sought to help with our amendment in the Lords and
our amendment
here. I
hope that the Committee will accept the logic of what I am saying,
which is widely supported by a number of Committees in the House as
well as by the many thousands of people who are living in and
contributing to this country and who are obviously very concerned about
this. As far back as 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights
said: “We
expressed our concern about the injustice done by retrospective changes
to rules which affect migrants’ eligibility to settle in the
UK”. The
Joint Committee, chaired by a distinguished Labour Member of
Parliament, also
said: “We
urge the Government not to repeat the unedifying spectacle of riding
roughshod over migrants’ legitimate expectations of settlement,
which undermined many migrants’ faith in the UK’s
commitment to basic fairness...We recommend that clear
transitional provisions are made which meet the legitimate expectations
of those already in the
system.” That
seems quite a good summary of the test that the Minister’s new
proposals will have to meet, if we are to avoid returning to the issue
in
future. My
noble Friend Baroness Hanham said that those
who “have
faithfully adhered to the current rules and thought that they were
firmly established on the road to citizenship should not now have the
rug pulled from beneath their feet. They have an expectation of a
timescale in which their naturalisation will be
fulfilled.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25
March 2009; Vol. 709, c.
705.] That is
another key
test. 9.45
am
Paul
Rowen: I am listening carefully to the arguments and agree
entirely with what Baroness Hanham said. Will the hon. Gentleman tell
us how people who came to this country on a work permit rather than on
a highly skilled migrant programme visa will be affected? My
understanding is that the amendment does not cover
them.
Damian
Green: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not want to weary
the Committee by repeating my explanation, but I want to focus on the
most highly skilled, because they are the most valuable resource to
this country. I have been getting similar e-mails in which people say
that, once someone is here on a work permit, they should have a glide
path to citizenship. It has been expressed to me that, if someone is in
this country with a work permit, it is a right to have British
citizenship. I do not agree. British citizenship is a privilege and not
a right to anyone who happens to work in this country. I do not
completely agree with those who think that, once people are here, they
should automatically be granted citizenship. There needs to be some
kind of commitment to this country and, if we can reach that stage, the
immigration system will be much more healthily balanced than it has
been in the past few
years. I
am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is being entirely consistent with
what his party has believed for a long time, which is that our
immigration laws are much too tough. His party would like much more lax
immigration laws and to make it much easier for people who come here,
including those who come here illegally, to be given an amnesty so that
they can stay, and that all those groups of people should automatically
be given British citizenship. I just happen to
disagree.
Paul
Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will not
bother explaining our policy to him, which is not as he has described
it. The judicial review touched on the fact that, under current
practice, there is an existing path to citizenship, which includes
people who have been here for a certain number of years on work visas.
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the logic that, if clause 39 is
rejected and nothing is put in its place, the Government will be faced
with the present position, because it is existing practice, not what is
fairer or whatever? The judges will rule whether it is fair or right.
One consequence of his amendment will be a flurry of court cases and
judgments that will cost the Government, who will end up conceding
anyway.
Damian
Green: That may or may not be the case. To clarify matters
for the Committee, the hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that the judicial
review case applied to everyone. On 8 April 2009, Mrs.
Justice Cox decided:
“In
respect of all persons admitted to the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme
as at 7 November 2006, those individuals are entitled to the benefits
of the scheme (including settlement) according to the terms (including
as to qualifying period) which applied on the date when they
joined.” If
the hon. Gentleman believes that the judgment applied to anyone,
whether they were on the highly skilled migrant programme or just had a
normal work permit, he is wrong. He can argue the case that it should
apply, but that is not what the judge
said.
Mr.
Woolas: May I also read into the record for the benefit of
clarity the fact that the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman is
referring said nothing about citizenship? It dealt with promises made
about indefinite leave to remain, which might help his point of
view.
Damian
Green: It is a separate
point.
Mr.
Woolas: Legally, it is a very important
point.
Damian
Green: I know, but it is a separate point. I know from the
debate on Second Reading that the Minister would prefer those who have
decided to settle here permanently to become citizens. I can see the
logic of that position. I take his point about the hugely important
legal issues, but I think we agree that, if somebody wants to commit
themselves to this country, then in most circumstances we would prefer
them to become a British citizen and make that commitment. Factually,
about 60 per cent. of them do. We are already at that
stage. One
could easily imagine circumstances in which somebody—an American
citizen perhaps—would not want to give up their home
citizenship. They may spend most of their working life in this country
but actually retire to their own country. In fiscal terms, I suspect
that that is the best deal that a British taxpayer could get out of
someone: their entire working life in this country—creating
wealth, paying taxes and so on—and then retiring to their own
country. That is not a debate for
now. It
is interesting and heartening to hear the Minister say what he has
already said. The intervention by the hon. Member for Rochdale would
have more validity if the Minister had not already said what he has
said. It is clear that the Government want to remove clause 39 and
replace it with something else. We can have a substantive debate on the
Government’s proposal when the Minister comes back with it. We
may well share views about whether that is likely to be satisfactory or
not; no doubt we can all look forward to another bombardment of e-mails
and letters, when the detail is produced. I recommend that we watch
this
space. The
Government have been grappling with the issue. Lord Brett indicated in
a letter dated 19 March 2009 that some transitional measures were being
considered for those who already have ILR or limited leave to enter or
remain in the UK but that they would not be finalised until the summer
of this year at the earliest. One might have thought that with
legislation passing through the House the Government would have
finalised that rather important issue first, but that is in
parenthesis. He went through various categories of applicant who would
benefit from transitional arrangements of one sort or
another.
The letter is
extremely important not only for this debate but for all future debates
on the subject. Lord Brett
said: “Any
application for naturalisation which is received by UKBA before the
earned citizenship clauses are commenced but which remains undecided,
will be considered under existing section 6 and Schedule 1 of the
British Nationality Act 1981, i.e. the application will not be affected
by the earned citizenship
proposals.” He
went on to
say: “Any
migrant who has ILR in the UK will be deemed to have permanent
residence leave for the purposes of the earned citizenship clauses.
They will not need to make an application to be recognised as a
permanent resident, or pay any sort of fee and they will continue to
have full access to benefits and services, subject to the general
eligibility
criteria.” He
also
said: “Migrants
with ILR when the earned citizenship clauses in the Bill are commenced
will be able to apply to naturalise under existing section 6 and
Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981 provided they apply
within a set period after the clauses have been commenced. Although we
have not yet confirmed this period, it is likely to be for between
18-24 months after the clauses
are commenced. We think a period such as this would be fair given that
the aim behind our proposals is that we want to encourage more people
to become British
citizens.” His
final point
was: “Migrants
who are currently in the UK and have existing limited leave to enter or
remain which is regarded, under the new earned citizenship system, to
be a qualifying immigration status, will be able to count that time
towards the qualifying period for naturalisation as a British citizen.
For example a person here under Tier 2 of the Points-Based System
before the earned citizenship clauses in the Bill are commenced will be
able to count that time as a type of qualifying temporary residence
leave, and therefore count this towards the revised qualifying periods
for
naturalisation.” I
apologise for reading all that in detail. It is important, because it
indicates the Government’s willingness to help. The Government
are inching towards some kind of sanity in this regard.
[Interruption.] Some kind of
sanity. Clearly,
the detail is very important. Offering qualifying periods to people
with limited leave to remain, which can count towards their qualifying
period for citizenship, is a step forward. The jump that the Government
have to make—the steps that they have not yet followed—is
what they are going to do to people who are already here, which is
clearly the point at issue. The Minister will be aware that the
concessions offered by Lord Brett in another place were simply regarded
as inadequate. They did not satisfy the House of Lords, and I suspect
that they would not satisfy this House, too.
Essentially,
every time the Government have put this matter either to a court or to
a House full of people who are not necessarily under the lash of the
Whips, they have lost the argument. If the Minister is saying that he
accepts that they have lost the argument and he will come back with
something that we can all find satisfactory, then I would welcome it. I
have quoted the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but the Minister will
be aware that other groups, such as the Migrants’ Rights
Network, have opposed the Government’s proposals on the matter.
Moreover, the Home Affairs Committee has looked fairly quizzically at
this part of the Bill.
Essentially,
the Minister has an enormously widespread coalition assembled against
him. If I can give him some comfort, we on the Conservative Benches do
not go all the way with those who are saying—as I think that the
Liberal Democrats are—that everyone who is here should not have
any of the new citizenship tests applied to them. That would be a step
too far. A balance needs to be struck and, so far, the Government have
struck it wrongly on one side and the Liberal Democrats are striking it
wrongly on the other. However, we seem to be moving slowly towards
sanity.
Paul
Rowen: I am puzzled by the position of the Conservatives.
Again, I shall quote the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), who
said during the Second Reading of the
Bill: “Will
he also fight hard to retain clause 39, which was put into the Bill in
the other place with the support of our noble
Friends?”—[Official Report, 2 June 2009; Vol. 493,
c. 184.] Will
the hon. Gentleman do that, and if not, why
not?
Damian
Green: I happily assure the hon. Gentleman that if
the Minister were to propose the deletion of clause 39, we would oppose
him. However, we already know that the Minister has said that he will
not do that.
Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is asking me a retrospective hypothetical
question, which is fascinating but not desperately relevant. The
Minister is looking
puzzled.
Mr.
Woolas: I am not puzzled by Government
policy.
Damian
Green: The Minister should listen to the Immigration Law
Practitioners Association, which has said that the Minister’s
statements are not clear. It is referring here to Lord Brett and not
the Minister before us today. Although I do not always agree with ILPA,
this is a reasonable piece of
analysis: “it
appears the Government's position is that some element of transitional
protection should extend beyond merely those on the
HSMP.” I
am not sure whether the Minister wishes to comment on that. The ILPA
wishes to see greater clarity from the Government
“as to the
commitment intended to be given—which from Lord Brett’s
statement appears to be that anyone on ILR at the commencement of the
new path to citizenship will be able to continue to citizenship under
existing provisions, anyone who has made an ILR application at that
time will also be able to continue under existing provisions and that
those with outstanding human rights, humanitarian protection and asylum
claims at that time will be able to continue under existing
provisions.” If
the Minister were to confirm that that is true, it would be an
interesting and significant shift in Government policy.
It is worth
illustrating the importance of highly skilled migrants—a point
that divides me from the hon. Member for Rochdale. I will quote from
one of the dozens of e-mails on that topic. Mr. Matt Garner
of West Sussex writes:
“When
I moved here, my US-based start-up company was acquired by a
London-based company who was subsequently awarded a Queens Award for
Innovation the following year. My wife has just been notified that she
will shortly be profiled as the ‘Innovator of the Month’
in the UK’s national Nursing Times industry paper. We’re
active in our communities and have leadership positions in our local
church. We’re exceptionally good at what we do. We have job
offers on the table from all around the world. We’ve never
broken any laws or been in any trouble. As we no longer feel welcome in
the United Kingdom, we are taking our skills, our talents and our
economic contributions with us to a country that will nurture us, or at
least, not mislead or impede us. What’s especially appealing is
a country that will give us the right to stay, without indefinitely
reserving the right to boot us out at short notice depending on the
prevailing political or economic
conditions.” 10
am I
am sure that the Minister will agree that if such people feel rejected
by the Government’s proposals thus far, something is going
seriously wrong. I will not bore the Committee by reading out other
e-mails, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many people in this
country are having similar thoughts. Such feelings spread quickly
because, inevitably, ex-pats tend to live in their own communities to
some extent and talk to each other. In a world where I can receive an
e-mail from West Sussex that can go around the world at the same speed,
a country’s image can change rapidly.
My final plea
to the Minister is that when he reveals the details of his
proposal— [Interruption.] I do want
a cap.
| 
