The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is being pretty
clever. His amendments were not selected, because they were
starred—tabled too late to be selected for today’s
sitting. If he fails to mention the amendment number, I am quite happy
for him to refer to all such matters in the clause stand part
debate.
Tom
Brake: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Consider reference to any
amendment numbers expunged from the record. I would hate not to give
the Minister an opportunity to read out the note that his officials
have helpfully provided him with on what I shall not call amendments,
but points of
debate. I
hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurances,
because the changes proposed in the clause will have substantial
impacts on some of the most vulnerable people seeking citizenship. It
could impose severe penalties on them, in a way that hopefully the
Minister accepts is not appropriate for people who soon will
be—we hope—citizens of the United Kingdom and wishing to
make a substantial contribution. We should want to welcome them as part
of that
process. 1.45
pm Mr.
David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab): I assure you that I have
absolutely no intention of mentioning any amendments, starred or
otherwise, Sir
Nicholas. I
seek clarity from the Minister on clause 40(2)(e) and the meaning of
“continuous employment”, because there is a huge question
about the meaning of that phrase. A trade union asked me to ask this
specific question: what would happen to people who are working in a
workplace who are being harassed, bullied and exploited while they are
here on work permits? If they chose to walk away from exploitation
rather than remain in that employment, would they rule themselves out
of the opportunity to become naturalised citizens?
The concern
is that there is only one legal definition of continuous employment. It
is spelt out in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which
states—very clearly, for the law of this land—that
continuous employment means employment with the same employer without a
break. Because there is no other definition in law, if people challenge
a decision to refuse naturalisation, the reality is that that
definition will be used. Is that the case? I understand that the
question was raised in the
Lords, and that the Minister there said that in certain circumstances
individuals could change employers in occupation periods. If that is
the case, will the Minister expand on it? People are
concerned about when such a situation might come about. Some time ago,
the case of the cockle pickers in Morecambe bay led to the welcome
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. As recently as yesterday, however, a
10-minute Bill was introduced on the Floor of the House by my hon.
Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan),
which would update the 2004 Act to include construction workers,
because of the problems that such workers are facing. Many people who
come to work in construction in this country from abroad may, in the
long term, become eligible for naturalisation. They are the sort of
people we need—as we said earlier, they are highly skilled
people—and we want to attract them. We need to be clear that
they will not be exploited.
There are
lots of problems with temporary workers and the agency workers
directive, and people are in danger of being exploited in the real
world of work. I had some experience of that when I was a Unison trade
union official. A group of degree-level Filipino nurses were working
over here on a contract and living four to a room. They were being
charged transport charges for using a bike to ride to work. They were
under pressure because there was a bond on them: if they walked away
from their work, not only would they be liable to pay the money back in
this country, but they would be liable to pay the money back to
contractors back home. My union got them out of that workplace and got
them work in the health service, where they were treated properly. If
the Bill goes through as it stands, most people would not want to
choose the alternative that my union made possible for those nurses.
People could be forced to stay in such workplaces if they want to
become naturalised citizens. It is a real issue.
Nobody is
unaware what is happening in the world now. There is massive
uncertainty because of the recession and there are questions about when
recovery will start. In the interval between the end of this
morning’s Committee’s sitting and the start of this
sitting, I spent three hours on the phone trying to deal with a case
that has developed in my constituency as a direct result of the closure
of Dairy Farmers of Britain. We are trying to stop the closure of a
dairy in my constituency. We know what the situation is, but we need to
be clear that we are doing everything we can to ensure we do not make
life even harder for people—good hard-working people—whom
we want to stay here. As a result of circumstances totally outside
their control, they might not be able to comply with the continuous
employment requirement.
The
Conservatives are committed to 10 per cent. cuts in public services.
Many of the people we are talking about—skilled migrant
workers—will be working in the health service, education and
local government. Their jobs will be under threat and they may well
fall outside this provision. Will the Minister please clarify what we
mean by “continuous employment” and calm my nerves? Let
us get this right and get it sorted.
Mr.
Woolas: I shall reply to the points in reverse order, not
least because the amendments do not exist, and because the number I
have written on my notes does not tally with the ones that were
submitted.
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): Which do not
exist.
Mr.
Woolas: Which do not exist.
Let me calm
the nerves of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon. In answer to his
question, we have made it clear that to qualify for citizenship, those
here on the work routes—in practice, tiers 1 and 2 of the
points-based system—must show that they have contributed
economically and have paid taxes. If they do not meet those two
requirements, they will not normally qualify for citizenship and, would
therefore be required to leave the UK. However, the majority of people
here to work do precisely that. If they cease to be in employment, they
have ceased—with the caveats—to meet the key requirement
of their route and so should not be allowed to progress to citizenship.
I think we all agree that it would be unacceptable if migrants who have
come here specifically to work were allowed to qualify for citizenship
despite being economically inactive for long periods.
The
continuous employment requirement is consistent with and underlines the
Government’s clear policy that migrants who enter by the work
route are here to work and be economically active. However, let me
reassure the Committee on several important issues related to that
requirement.
The Bill
requires those who were granted probationary citizenship for the
purposes of taking employment to demonstrate only that they have
remained in continuous employment. We agree that the requirement that a
migrant on the work route must be in continuous employment should not
be interpreted rigidly. That is why there is discretion to waive that
requirement where appropriate. Continuous employment does not mean
employment with one employer; we are clear that people can meet the
requirement in the earned citizenship clauses if they change jobs, or
types of jobs, or self-employment during the qualifying period. That
will be set out in the guidance we publish on that
requirement. I
shall answer the more specific points raised in the other place about
domestic workers, even though my hon. Friend spoke more generally. The
Government are committed to the requirements set out for naturalisation
in the Bill, and the expectation is that migrants on the work route
must meet all of those requirements. Discretion should not be regarded
as a way to avoid the requirements. It is quite different from removing
the requirements for a person who has come here to remain in employment
continuously. The
Bill includes a power for the Secretary of State to treat people as
meeting the continuous employment requirement even where that is not
literally the case. Our view is that we should mirror the time period
allowed under the points-based system for migrants to secure
alternative employment. In other words, we would consider applying
discretion where the total number of days of unemployment for the
duration of the probationary citizen period is 60 days or less. In some
circumstances, we would consider applications where the total is more
than 60.
I do not wish
to set out the list of those circumstances under which that discretion
should be applied, as I was tempted to do. That would be
counter-productive, because providing a fixed definition of discretion
would mean that—by the very nature of its being fixed—it
would cease to be discretionary. We do not want to exclude
scenarios that might arise. We are committed to considering each case
individually on its own merits, just as we are committed to upholding
that principle within the workings of the existing points-based system.
I believe that that provides a more transparent and fair basis on which
to use discretion. The Secretary
of State would treat people who lost their jobs for a short period as
meeting the continuous employment requirement, even if that were not
literally the case. The 60-day period is consistent with the
points-based system period. To avoid the exploitation of that
loophole—that is not quite the right word—by those who
are not well intentioned, we wish to provide a clear framework based on
the 60 days, which is taken from our definition. That will provide for
discretion to meet the point that has been made. That is exemplified in
our response to the situation with domestic workers, where special
arrangements are in place to avoid exploitation that could take place
in any case, but which is more likely in an economic downturn. The rule
is strong, but it is not rigid, precisely because of the arguments that
my hon. Friend
made. I
will respond to the other questions, again in reverse order. The hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about continuous periods
interspersed with purposes other than the initial reason given for the
visa. Somebody who spends two periods in the UK with a qualifying
immigration status, and who in between is lawfully in the UK with an
immigration status that is not a qualifying one, can have the two
qualifying periods aggregated. The hon. Gentleman is nodding—he
knows what I mean. For example, an applicant who entered under the work
route, stopped working after three years to commence a two-year period
of study and then resumed work, could count both periods spent as a
worker towards the qualifying
period. The
Government have set out that only if migrants enter through one of the
three key routes—work, protection and family—can it lead
to naturalisation as a citizen. We made it clear that only time spent
in one of those routes is capable of counting towards the qualifying
period for naturalisation. If the period in the middle was spent as a
student, which was the hon. Gentleman’s example, it would not
count because that is not a qualifying route. However, the work chunks
on either side could be aggregated. I hope that I have answered that
question. I
was asked whether refugees have to pay fees to get citizenship. Like
everyone else, they have to pay. However, unlike other migrants on the
path to citizenship, they are not charged at other stages of the
process. In other words, when they have been given protection, they
become the same as other people on the route. By then, they would be
established in our
country. The
hon. Member for Ashford asked which categories of people will have
qualifying immigration status. There are three main routes. The first
is the family route, which involves the family members of British
citizens. The second is the work route, which is made up of migrants on
tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system, but not those on tiers 3, 4
or 5. The third is the protection route, which involves refugee status
or humanitarian protection, or discretionary leave. Another route is as
an EEA entrant; such people will retain the right to naturalise as a
British citizen, provided they meet the criteria.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about periods of absence. He meant people going
abroad, rather than staying in the UK under another category. I do not
support, and I doubt that he does, the idea of an average calculation
of absences over the qualifying period. However, we will not examine
the requirement when the absences in the earlier part of the qualifying
period—that is, at the entry into the probationary citizenship
stage—have been examined already. I hope that he is following
my
logic.
2
pm First,
we are not concerned about absences from the UK before the start of the
qualifying period. Secondly, we want to avoid a system that
penalises—for exceeding the time limit by a few
days—those whom we might want to remain, or who might have
justifiable reasons for their absence. In other words, like my point
about continuous employment, we want to put some common sense into the
Bill—I always try to do that in legislation, although it is not
always straightforward. In recognition of the need for flexibility, the
Bill provides discretion to allow the Secretary of State, or his
designated officials, to overlook a period of absences exceeding 90
days in a year in the special circumstances of a particular case. We
shall, of course, continue to expect migrants to justify large
absences, and in such cases we would expect the applicant to
demonstrate close links with the UK through length of residence, and
presence of home, family and estate in the UK. We would then consider
the reasons for an absence. The 90-day rule will apply, therefore, but
the discretion will enable the applicant to demonstrate a genuine
reason for an absence. That is better than making automatic
assumptions.
Tom
Brake: Before the Minister moves on to other
matters—or, indeed, concludes—may I return briefly to the
issue of refugees? Am I right in thinking that the citizenship
application costs are about £700? Some refugees might suffer
from significant mental health issues—perhaps as a result of
torture. Is there discretion within the system to allow those fees to
be
waived?
Mr.
Woolas: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point,
but the answer is no. The citizenship fee applies at the point of
obtaining citizenship, by which time the refugee will no longer have
refugee or protected status. The circumstances that he mentions could
apply equally to those who have come through different routes and for
reasons beyond their control. So I do not accept his
argument—well, he was not making an argument, but asking a
legitimate
question. Clause
40 ensures that the rights and benefits of British citizenship are
matched by responsibilities and contributions made to Britain. It does
so by creating a clear system to determine progress on the journey to
citizenship, a clear set of incentives for migrants to progress to
citizenship and a clear undertaking that citizenship should be earned.
To earn the right to progress between stages, migrants will be required
by the Bill, first, to meet English, or Welsh or Scottish—I am
looking for help with pronunciation here—“Gar-lic”
language requirements. [Hon. Members: “Garlic?”] I kid
you not, Sir Nicholas! I am quoting the hon. Member for Perth and North
Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who made this point on Second Reading. I
always thought that it was
“Gay-lic”.
Mr.
Blunt: It is
“Gallic”.
Mr.
Woolas: Well, I misheard then.
Mr.
David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab): I would say
“Gay-lic”. I would like to make one other observation
though. Why include Welsh and Scottish Gaelic, but then miss out the
Irish? There are four parts to this country. In Northern Ireland,
Gaelic—or “Gay-lic”—is also spoken
regularly. On an administrative point, the Government might like either
to include the Irish or take out the Scots and Welsh and simply refer
to
English.
| 
