| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, several things have been conflated, if I may respectfully say so. First, noble Lords will know that the DWP report on loss of benefit for breach of a community service order relates to young people who have not addressed the orders appropriately. It cannot properly be relied on in this context. The noble Earl asked about years when we were above the third quarter. I do not know the answer to that, and I will have to write to the noble Earl. To be frank, I must say that I am not sure that I understood what the noble Earl was saying.
We are making a distinction between the position of EEA members and the accession countries as regards rights under the actively seeking work principle. The derogation is in the accession treaty, and we are seeking to allow those who come here to work in a way that is open and fair.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I have a practical question for the Minister. What happens, if someone who comes from one of the accession countries—where, after all, the average wage is less than half our minimum wage, making the attraction of coming here clear—has an accident at work or loses his job after, say, a couple of months? He may have brought his family and may have three or four children. Is the Minister really saying that that family will be left destitute and that there will be some procedure by which they will be returned to their country? What happens while that procedure is going on? What view will the courts take of that? Will not the Government find that the courts have ruled that their policy is unacceptable?
I worry about the practicalities. I understand why the Minister is giving her response, but she should give some comfort to those of us who find it difficult to see how the system will work in practice.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as the noble Lord appreciates, the way in which the scheme is to work will enable those from the A8 countries, which are accession countries, to come here and take advantage of the opportunities to work. The whole purpose is that they are able to do that; we are making no restrictions on them bringing their families. They will be able to take advantage of a number of the facilities available here in the UK which may not be available as easily in their host countries. But the hard fact is that if they are not, within that first 12 months, able to maintain themselves and their family, they will not be entitled to claim state benefit. They may be able to obtain assistance from the local authority in relation to going home again or some short-term respite, but they will not be entitled to state benefit as of right. I am sorry if that does not give the noble Lord the comfort he seeks, but that will be the position.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister remember that on 12 February she gave the Government's estimate that there are between 5 million and 7 million Roma people in the accession countries? Does she agree that the majority of these live in very miserable and often deprived conditions and that many of them are persecuted? Does she recognise that if only 5 per cent of those were to come here and have difficulty fitting in and getting jobs, at an average cost of benefit and services of some £10,000 a head—the sort of figure generally mentioned nationally—it would cost £2.5 billion to £3 billion a year, which is the entire GDP growth forecast for next year?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the main concentration of the debate seems,
unfortunately, to have hinged on the Roma. We do not think that that is an appropriate way to look at these issues. We are making it absolutely clear to all those who wish to come to this country that if they come here and do not get work they will not be entitled to state benefits. We are saying very clearly that if it is their purpose to come to this country and not work, it will not work.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister has already confirmed that more than 175,000 work permits were issued for the purpose of managed migration and, of those, about 20,000 were issued to EU nationals. Will she confirm that the people who come here from EU accession countries would have no consequential effect on the work permits issued to people from Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand in particular, and other parts of the world? Will she also confirm that at the end of the residential qualification period, both EU nationals and others would be entitled to British nationality?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that they would be entitled to apply for British nationality. Whether they would be entitled to be granted it is, of course, another issue.
Let me make it absolutely clear that we see this as an opportunity for progressive change. Many people who come to this country are, regrettably, abused and taken advantage of because they cannot work legitimately. We are providing a clear way in which any of these individuals can come to this country and apply for work at the minimum wage or above, so that they will not be exploited and employers who seek to take advantage by oppressing or subjugating them will not have the opportunity to do so.
This is the best way of giving individuals a legitimate route to be here, to work hard and to contribute. If that succeeds, we will all be able to reap the benefit.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, will the Minister now answer—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I draw noble Lords' attention to the clock.
European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill
5.4 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 4:
- Page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to give a word of explanation. This amendment, along with a number of others that we will come to during the course of our discussions this afternoon, is consequential on the amendment to Clause 1 that was made by the Government in their Amendment No. 2, as amended by the Opposition's Amendment No. 3. They simply make it clear that there will not be a need for a general order for the reasons that we gave in the earlier discussion. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Turner of Camden): My Lords, I should tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 6 because of pre-emption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 5:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, our earlier debate featured a number of serious concerns about voting by post. This amendment is about minimising those concerns where all postal vote pilots will still take place. I would be rather less concerned if they took place in two regions rather than four, but there are still important concerns about the possibilities of personation.
Postal vote fraud is a serious risk. Requiring a witness signature to accompany the vote could make a considerable difference in reducing problems, particularly in areas of multiple occupation homes and in inner cities.
Some people say that fraud in postal voting is very rare, but I do not believe we should open up the system to abuse. I can see how, with all-postal voting pilots in a number of areas, there could be extensive abuse.
On the whole, the Electoral Commission is of the view that so far there is not widespread abuse. It points to the fact that, generally, abuse in our political system is pretty rare. However, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there are abuses and examples of fraudulence in a number of places. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, referred to our experience in Liverpool in the 1980s. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, was mindful of some of the tactics employed by the Militant Tendency in the 1980s regarding personation at the polling stations.
It is rather difficult in some places to go to the polling station and impersonate someone else; I suggest that it is very much easier if you simply collect in the postal votes. You could collect 10 postal votes put through one letterbox in a house and sign to the effect that you were those 10 people. If you had to require a witness signature to say that you were such and such a person, that would
I know also that there may be some problems for deaf-blind people or other disabled people, but I suggest that postal voting with a witness signature is still easier for many than going to a polling station. If you apply to vote by post in the London elections in June and receive a postal vote, you will have to obtain a witness signature to say that you are the person voting in that way. I see no reason for suggesting that if an all-postal pilot takes place, in the east Midlands or the northern region, for example, that requirement should be abandoned.
I would say by way of comfort to people who are concerned that the witness signature requirement may reduce turnout slightly or make it slightly harder for some disabled people to vote that the solution will come in a few years, I hope, when there is individual registration of voters on the electoral register. At present, one person tends to fill in the form for everyone who lives in the household. That means that only one signature is kept by the returning officer, and it is impossible for other people on the electoral register in that household who return postal votes to have their self-certification signature checked because there is no other record of their signature.
Within a few years we will have a new system, I hope, whereby every individual will go on the electoral register, with a copy of their own signature. When we reach that point, there will be no need for a witness signature, but until then, I suggest this amendment is very necessary. I beg to move.
"(1) This section has effect in relation to a pilot order.
(2) A pilot order may make provision for conduct which differs from that provided for by or under a relevant enactment."
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The pilot order must provide that—
(a) all postal ballot papers must be accompanied by a declaration of identity, signed by the elector and by a witness, and containing in legible form the name and address of the witness;
(b) each elector who has returned a postal ballot paper is sent an acknowledgment by the returning officer."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page